Glenn Poshard, a three-degree graduate of SIU and former member of the Illinois Senate is a truly good man. After he left Congress, Poshard and his wife founded the Poshard Foundation for Abused Children which raises more than $100,000 annually to fund care for abused children and other victims of domestic abuse throughout Southern Illinois. The Poshard Foudation even led efforts to construct a $600,000 women’s shelter in Cairo that opened December 2003. Poshard also has a deep understanding of higher education since all three of his degrees are in education. With all his congressional leadership and public service after congress, it is a proven fact that Glenn Poshard is a really good man. Also SIU has grown significantly and prospered since he was selected to serve as President of the SIU system.
My point that Poshard is a good man is that sometimes good people make bad choices. He may be a great leader for our university but he did make the mistake of plagiarism. With Poshard making the mistake of plagiarizing on master's thesis and his doctoral dissertation, I feel that he should step down and take full responsibility for his mistake.
This past week in the news, there was a girl from my high school who graduated a year ahead of me accused of first degree murder. She had even been in a couple of my classes during high school and I got to know her fairly well. I found her to be a goody goody who would never do anything wrong or dare to harm a fly, I found myself to be very wrong about her. You can not underestimate any person ever, no matter how good of a person he or she may be. I believe she made a mistake, the mistake of hanging around the wrong people. Now here is my question, have we underestimated Glenn Poshard's leadership because of how good of a man he is? What resolution should come out of this issue about plagiarism? Should the plagiarism policy be changed so that students can have a second chance to revise their work before they recieve a failing grade or should we be able to take Poshards PhD away from him? What is a good resolution for the outcome of this?
I wrote this blog not in support of Poshard, but to recognize some of his great deeds. As I said earlier good men can make bad choices as well and I believe Poshard made a bad decision and didn't think twice before he did it.
Erik I got to tell you that this blog was created by us students as well as maintained by us. We did it with the support of our instructor. He is not "tarnishing" our minds of us "fresh out of high school kids." Not every person in English 101 is necessarily fresh out of high school. I know of adults who go back to college in their middle ages that have to take English 101. Also Keith encourages us to think objectively about this issue. The assignment was to write about our thoughts on plagiarism, he did not tell us to write about Poshard. Also he told us to research, he did not feed us "cherry-picked facts" we made our own judgment from all the facts we found in our research.
J.L.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Maybe you should look up the rules on plagiarism 23 years ago. I'm sure it's a lot more strict now, so can Poshard really get his Ph.D taken away from him when the rules have changed drastically?
The "rules" of plagiarism have not changed in the last 23 years - they are not more strict now than they were then. Generally accepted ideas about plagiarism in academia have been around since the 1700s. You can read some of the history of ideas about plagiarism here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=315562
(Use the "download document" link in the upper left for the entire text.)
The last part of the URL was cut off, it should be:
abstract_id=315562
Maybe the general idea of plagiarism is the same, but accepted styles of citation have changed significantly since the 1980's.
(not the same Erik)
It is true that the citation styles have changed. However there has never been a citation style that would allow what Poshard did on page 54 of his dissertation. That is where, without citation, nor quotation, he put the summary from a 1975 book chapter in the place where the summary of his 1983 literature review should have gone.
It may have been honest carelessness?????, but it was never acceptable. No Expo Facto changing of the rules here.
Correction - that should have read "a part of the summary from..." He didn't copy the whole thing, just many many words.
Further explanation.
The "Expo Facto" misspelling was intentional.
(Sort of an inside joke.)
So, you're saying an educated, logical individual would deliberately lift passages from a work that he/she already had cited and even listed in his/her bibliography?
As an educated, logical individual, if I was planning on stealing something, I sure as hell wouldn't tell the person I was stealing from or list their name anywhere.
For example: "Wal-Mart - must steal from today" on a post it note.
That is clearly inadvertant and SIUC's conduct code allows for resubmission in the even of inadvertant plagiarism.
(Not the same Erik)
Erik, Please show me in the Student Conduct Code where there is any mention of "inadvertent plagiarism."
It is not there.
In fact the Faculty Review Committee specifically stated that the Student Conduct Code does not provide any guidance for the resolution of President Poshard's situation. And they seem to have come to that conclusion in part because the Student Conduct Code would not allow them the category of "inadvertent plagiarism."
QUOTE – The current Student Conduct code gives clear and distinct policies to be followed if the “student accepts responsibility” in contrast to situations in which “the student does not accept responsibility,” but gives no directives for differentiating among possible categories, such as those in the Blue Ribbon Panel’s report or this committee’s report. That lack, together with the fact that there is not comparable Code in the Graduate Catalogs for 1980 – 1985, suggests that the “Resolution” alternatives given in the current Code, including prerequisites for a “formal” hearing rather than an “informal” investigation, are inapplicable in this situation. END QUOTE
(page 9 of the report http://news.siu.edu/20071011.pdf )
I take from this that the "resolution" that they suggested is not a resolution process described in the Student Conduct Code.
This is good for President Poshard, I suppose, because if they were following written policy President Poshard would have been required to admit to a "violation" of the code on academic dishonesty, rather than an "honest mistake."
But maybe I am misreading the policies.
“Informal Hearing: In cases where the student admits to a violation of this code relating to academic dishonesty, the matter may be adjudicated at the department level.” (pg 39. http://www.siu.edu/gradschl/catalog_07-08/34-Student_Conduct_Code.pdf )
However if I am mistaken please correct me, the graduate schools Student Conduct Code is readily available online.
Erik M. thank you very much for pointing the student code of conduct out! Very good point! Have you by chance read my post "what defines plagiarism?" the very first post on this blog, its on the next page with older posts.
-Jill
As to your point about citing the work you are plagiarizing from elsewhere, in my experience it is not all that uncommon.
SIUE's Brian Abel Ragen described the situation quite accurately in his 1987 New York Time's article about Joe Biden's Plagiarism.
QUOTE: Most plagiarists decorate their works with little monuments to lost honor in the form of honest quotations.
For instance, a student who blithely steals from a book – taking whole paragraphs without a footnote or a quotation mark – will also include a scrupulously documented quotation from the same work elsewhere in the essay. The student reasons that the honest quotation shows that the student is not really a plagiarist…
...students will ask, ‘If I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?’ I know of at least two cases of plagiarism in which a student has claimed that the very baldness of his offense shows that it must not have been intentional.
END QUOTE ( http://web.mac.com/abelragen/Site/Ragen_Plagiarism_Essays_files/Ragen-Biden-87Plagiarism.pdf )
It is interesting that Dr. Ragen wrote this just three years after President Poshard wrote his dissertation. Seems like people did care a thing or two about plagiarism back then.
In Poshards dissertation, in part one, was he referring to "gifted children" as special education children aka mentally handicapped or those advanced in their learning skills?
(Not that Erik)
Gifted = exceptionally high intelligence or abilities or etc.
They tried to handle this at the department level, the department said they would not review the dissertation. Then they moved up the ladder to the dean who supported the decision of the department.
That's why the committee was created by Chancellor Trevino, not Poshard.
The committee was never called a "blue-ribbon committee"
The blue ribbon committee was something Poshard created over 6 months ago for some other purpose. The moniker was another form of DE attacks and false truths in which they wanted Poshard's head. The DE often referred to the committee as this to give the idea they were chosen by Poshard himself.
This whole thing sucks. Lies are being fought with more lies from all sides.
The committee's decision does not violate the conduct code in any way. Maybe I shouldn't rely on the DE to report what the conduct code actually says either. The code is vague but allows for punishments as seen fit by the disciplinary body.
(Not that Erik)
That Erik says "The committee was never called a 'blue-ribbon committee'"
This Erik invites that Erik to look at the actual resolution that was passed by the Faculty Senate and tell all of us what they called the committee. This Erik has provided a direct link to the resolution for the convenience of that Erik.
http://www.siu.edu/~facsenat/0907apx.pdf
It may be true that it is no longer called the "Blue Ribbon Committee." However it is not true that it was never called that. Nor is it true that it was something made up by the DE.
In such matters I find it helpful if everyone do their best to be accurate. It is best not to pass along things that you have heard, which you have not verified. Before making pronouncements about what is, and is not in the Student Conduct Code, it would be a good idea to actually consult the code.
I do not find the Student Conduct Code at all vague on such matters. For example it is clear enough on what is plagiarism. And the Faculty Review Committee said quite plainly that if they had to follow the Student Conduct Code they would have to find the charge "Sufficiently Supported" to recomend a formal hearing.
QUOTE: According to the 2007-2008 Graduate Catalog (p. 35), plagiarism is defined as "representing the work of another as one's own." Given this definition, and without taking into account the historical context of this dissertation, our response to the question in [5c] of the charge must be in affirmative: On the basis of this definition, the work of others and the work of the author of this chapter are represented so that readers cannot distinguish between those two sources. Thus, in relation to this definition, this committee finds that "the allegations are sufficiently supported." [to warrant a formal hearing]
However, Dr. Poshard does not accept this definition... END QUOTE ( http://news.siu.edu/20071011.pdf )
I find that last line both incredible, and incredibly telling. President Poshard does not accept that definition so we are not going to use it. (Is that what they are saying?)
In other words. If they were following the current student conduct code they would have found that a formal hearing would be necessary (instead of the informal process that they used.) However since their boss does not like the definition that is currently in the Student Conduct Code, they will try to find some new definitions.
No problem. They had, ready made, some new definitions handed to them by the "Blue Ribbon" Committee that President Poshard did indeed appoint.
Please, let us be clear. The current, published, Student Conduct Code was not followed. You can decide for yourself why that was.
Instead the committee relied heavily on the "Blue Ribbon" committee of Poshard's own making to come up with the wiggle room necessary for his defense.
Interpretation of the conduct code is distinctly given to whoever is administering the code (ie a professor, a dean, a committee).
Now, some quotes for you.
POSHARD DID NOT APPOINT THE COMMITTEE
"SIU Carbondale chancellor Fernando Trevino plans to appoint the review committee next week to look into allegations that Poshard plagiarized several sections of his 1984 doctoral dissertation..."
(Chicago Sun-Times, Sept 7)
"Trevino was forced to consider creating a new committee after members of SIU's department of educational administration and higher education -- which granted Poshard's degree -- turned down the job." (Chicago Sun-Times, Sept 7
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070907/ai_n19518140)
IT WAS NOT CALLED THE BLUE-RIBBON COMMITTEE
"Committee members also were given copies of a plagiarism report released a week earlier by a blue-ribbon committee that formed a year earlier at Poshard's urging to pinpoint a definition for plagiarism and to recommend a guideline to curb the dishonest practice at SIU." (The Southern Illinoisan, Sept 27
http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2007/09/27/top/21639892.txt, it's the last paragraph).
The Blue-Ribbon Committee had 9 members and was formed 10 months ago. The review committee had 7 members and was formed 2 months ago, by Trevino.
All this AFAC propaganda is just annoying. It's one thing if you can show an honest case, but when more than half of the "facts" you present are lies and misinformation you just look dumb (not calling the other Erik dumb).
Yes, Poshard's situation could have warranted a formal hearing, however nowhere in the code does it state that a formal hearing must take place if a, b, & c happen. It's just not that specific. It lists what is against the rules. It lists possible punishments for violating the rules. It has a list of definitions. It's kind of like the US Constitution, rather vague and very open to interpretation.
I can't help it if the faculty senate bought into the sensationalist rantings of Dr. Ware. I wouldn't believe him if he was asked to give a weather report or the time of day.
The blue ribbon committee and the review committee were 2 different entities. AFAC and the the Voice of AFAC (DE) were the only ones trying to make this claim.
If this whole affair wasn't a hate campaign wrapped in a holy quest, I might buy into the "Poshard must hang for this" side. However, it was a calculated political maneuver
carried out by cowards and plagiarists as an act of vengeance.
(Not that Erik)
That Erik said: All this AFAC propaganda is just annoying. It's one thing if you can show an honest case, but when more than half of the "facts" you present are lies and misinformation you just look dumb (not calling the other Erik dumb).
This Erik says - I thank you for not calling me dumb. However by mentioning my name in the same sentence as one where you refer to AFAC and talk about "lies and misinformation" You might give the impression that you were referring to me when you said those things. I am not saying that you were referring to me, I only wish to make clear to others that none of those descriptions fit me.
To be clear. AFAC is as much of a mystery to me as it is to you, I am not aware that anyone I know is associated with the group.
Also please be clear. I do not believe that I have made any untrue claims, nor any misleading claims.**
Please go back and carefully re-read if you think that this is not the case.
Also I would like to be clear. It is the Faculty Review Committee's own report that specifically denies that they are following the Student Conduct Code for a resolution procedure. They determined it inapplicable.
You say that that their procedure does not violate the code. I have not said otherwise, only that their resolution process was not described in it. Which, again, is the very claim that the committee itself made so I hardly see how it could be controversial.
Also I want to be clear. I never claimed that Poshard appointed the Faculty Review Committee
Also I want to be clear. I never confused the two committees. I have merely pointed out that there is a legitimate reason for honest confusion given that the faculty senate itself referred to the Faculty Review Committee as a "blue ribbon" committee.
Just trying to be clear.
I'm not attacking you with name calling and the word "dumb"...that's why I added the disclaimer. I see how my broad statements may have seemed to be directed at you. I was on a rant. I apologize.
My post was for clarity as well. I've been very annoyed and frustrated by the false information surrounding this whole ordeal. Sadly, most of it is spread by the DE, which is still censoring its dissentors, by the way.
I look at this whole thing in a very strange way.
I think Poshard screwed up his dissertation.
I think the manner which it came to light was dispicable and unethical.
I have faith in the decision made by the review committe in the context of the whole situation.
I mean, would a student not be treated differently if blackmail was in invovled in their situation? How could you not have some sympathy for them?
As you can probably tell, my stance is not that Poshard was innocent. It is against every action taken to discredit our President and our university by a group of malicious former faculty members with a chip on their shoulder. You don't even want to get me started on how I feel about the DE now.
As with this blog.... I don't want the focus of the scandal to fall only on what to do with Poshard. There also needs to be consideration into the actions of groups such as AFAC and whatever medium they use to further their agenda. All of their actions do more harm to the institution as a whole than anything Wendler or Poshard allegedly plagiarized.
Before I call for Poshard to resign, I need more truth about the accusers.
I understand the point of adhering to the current rules of attribution, however Poshard's dissertation attributes everything said about another's work. This is the reason that the faculty review committee in carbondale indicated that he used an earlier citation style not accepted today. This thus would be plagiarism in only an inadvertent and minute sense.
I'm with 'anonymous said'. Poshard attributes everything, 'according to' just not in today's citation style.
This may technically be considered plagiarism by today's standards, but by intent, the work was attributed.
Richard,
That is simply not true of all of the problematic passages. Have you actually read the dissertation and compared it to the source material? It is true that some of the passages are just poorly and incorrectly cited / quoted.
However others, for example the lengthy passages on page 54, are just plain lifted with no citation whatsoever. The Faculty Review Committee states quite clearly in their Appendix B that this passage was not cited. They determined it was a case of "Uncited text (misremembering)"
( http://news.siu.edu/20071011.pdf )
Misremembering? What is that?
That Erik Said: "I look at this whole thing in a very strange way.
I think Poshard screwed up his dissertation.
I think the manner which it came to light was dispicable and unethical."
This Erik says - Can't argue with either of those points.
I'm not sure that they should be tied together though.
I'm not sure that they should be tied together though.
But without one, you do not have the other.
So in short, the cause of this whole fiasco were the vengeful actions of a group of disgruntled plagiarists and their friends (who have a quarter million dollar interest in everything). One who has an open lawsuit against the university, one who left the school after trying to blackmail the administration and one very loyal student, who probably stands to gain if a certain Chris Dussold wins his $750,000 lawsuit.
What's with you Madison County folks and suing people that piss you off? (I'm referring to the girl suing a bar because a stranger punched her along with the history of med-malpractice)
The examples of plagiarism were weak in the dissertation. So weak, in fact, that the review committee and a plagiarism expert determined there was not really any reason for all the fuss.
Would an external review solve the problem?
What if their recommendation was the same as the internal review committee?
If so, would we still be here discussing this?
Calculated and deliberate. If you're a baseball fan you may have heard something about Cleveland pitcher, Paul Byrd being accused of using HGH. The man heading up the big investigation on HGH and steroids is a part owner of the Boston Red Sox. Why on earth would this information leak to the media just before Game 7 of the ALCS? Just like, why on earth would A-Rod's agent break the news of his free agency during Game 4 of the World Series? There's a reason for everything, and it wasn't for the good of the university or the integrity of the game.
I know good students that have made bad mistakes too. Can they come back and redo their undergrad English 201 papers? What is your point? It does not matter who he personally is the perception is he cheated, the perception is our school is represented and ran by a cheater, and perception is reality! He needs to do the honorable thing and resign if he is such a 'good man.'
What really needs to happen to regain academic honesty, trust, and legitamacy, is to reinvestigate the matter with an independant committee. This commitee should compare the disortation with others of the time, interview his doctoral comittee, and interview Poshard. His excuses are an insult to the academic world, handling it internally is looks scandolous at the least and lacks merit (conflict of interest), this is what we should be fighting for. Any of those apposed just seam like they are hiding something. I hope that the Tenured Proffesors do what they do best and investigate this matter and the refute or uphold the findings of the internal committee. Do what you do best and research. Not to save Poshard's name but to save the legitamacy of SIUE and uphold the legacy of all those who walked the halls before us.
Erik,
I can't defend the culture of lawsuits in Madison county, I agree that it is amiss. However I also agree with J0shua84 - that the perception is that SIU just doesn't understand plagiarism. The whole school (at least Carbondale) is giving the perception that they just don't understand the basic concept.
It is worth noting that SIUC's own "expert," Professor Nelms, has exactly zero publications on plagiarism. It is also worth noting that his own bio on the SIUC English department website makes no mention of any expertise in plagiarism. His defense of President Poshard does more to bolster the notion that Carbondale just doesn't understand plagiarism, than it does to exonerate the president.
If they had a real, externally recognized expert on plagiarism review the dissertation, that would help.
If they had a real, external committee, that would help.
If those external sources gave the dissertation the stamp of approval then we could say this was much ado about nothing.
J0shua84-- I did not post this in order to save Poshards name, I posted this because one of the arguments is that he is a good man as well as a good leader. I do not believe he should be in office as the President of SIU because he is indeed a cheater as you stated. One of the reasons for the part about him being a good man was because my instructor had an assignment to write an argument why he should remain in office, I had an extremely difficult time writing this because I think he is horrible for getting away with plagiarism or should I say "Poshardism"?? I believe he should take full responsibility and resign, just because he has done great things in his past as a politician does not mean he is innocent. I believe he is a snake, a liar in other words. How can we be proud to attend a university that is able to redefine words and have a president that does not accept certain definitions of plagiarism? By how the committee said that there were accepted ideas about plagiarism in the 1970s and 80s and that we are more strict now, (I'm taking words from today's issue of the Alestle) it's like saying that I am kind of pregnant, there is no such thing as being kind of pregnant; you are either a.)pregnant or b.)not pregnant. You can't kind of plagiarize, you either do or you don't. I believe plagiarism is plagiarism and I find the need for an outside committee to review his work because yes I agree, an internal committee is biased whether they say so or not. Poshard does need to be a "good man" and do the honorable thing and resign.
Jesus, where to start?
1. Perception does not equal reality. 10 people can view the same event and see it 10 different ways, none of which are necessarily reality.
3. All but one member of his "dissertation" committee is dead, so unless you have a suggestion for a good medium to hire an a Ouija board, I think talking to them is out of the question.
5. Academe takes great pride in redefining words and even making up words which really have no meaning at all.
7. The committee didn't say he didn't plagiarize. They said he used a citation style which was accepted at the time, which is no longer an accepted style. Honestly, if you know what citation styles will be accepted in 25 years, please let me know...otherwise I'm going to have find that medium and a Ouija board.
9. If plagiarism is such a black and white issue, why would there be one iota of debate regarding this matter from the beginning? Why do research committees allow students to fix citation errors instead of expelling them? Honest mistakes happen. The real crime here is oversight, not plagiarism.
11. Many of you are so quick to forget that the BOT are supervisors over the President. How is it Poshard's fault that the BOT decided to take the courses of action they have taken? You can't blame Poshard for the internal review, it was set up after the Education Department declined to review the dissertation by the BOT and the Chancellor. The BOT had the final decision in the matter, not Poshard.
You all bash and rip on Poshard when the real blame clearly lies elsewhere in the SIU system.
2. The original dissertation committee should have caught the error.
4. The Education Department was supposed to review the disseration per due process in the student conduct code.
6. The BOT chose do handle the allegations internally.
8. The BOT chose to accept the recommendations of the review committee.
Someone please clarify how having Poshard resign will solve any of these problems within the SIU system. Many levels of administration dropped the proverbial ball on the matter and Poshard remains President. Why aren't you calling for the resignation of the BOT or faculty of the Education Department? As long as everyone who allowed this to happen remain in place, nothing has really changed. Poshard has just became the 'scapegoat' which will supposedly fix the problem.
The resignation of Glenn Poshard is not the solution to the problem. It's just a perception of a solution.
And jOshua84,
Please consider retaking English 201. Your posts were painful to read.
Did somebody pull the plug on this blog?
**cricket chirps**
No, no one has pulled a plug on this blog. I have been writing on paper organizing what I am going to be posting next. There will be more soon, I have just been busy writing a different 4 page essay every day for the past week and a half and my classes(grades) come before this blog.
--Jill
It's taken you a week to write a 4 page essay?
I've had classes where we had 5 pages due at the end of every week.
Study faster.
The debate is wearing thin here.
You do realize I'm kidding right?
No, I have had three 4-page papers this week alone. In other words it is like a twelve page paper covering three completely different topics. Film review, cultural paper about media vs. real life and an argumentative essay I have chosen on something you may want to consider, euthanasia(assisted suicide). You realize I am kidding about that comment right? It may be easier to write all these papers if I didn't have to worry so much about plagiarism or "Poshardism."
"I have chosen on something you may want to consider, euthanasia"
Why do I need to worry about kids in the Far East?
What film are you reviewing?
Haha, glad to see you have some humor. I reviewed probably one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life: Mona Lisa Smile. Erik might I ask you why you are so quick to get off the blog topic??
Nobody was offering anything else for me to say....the board kinda died.
I've never seen Mona Lisa Smile and haven't really had the desire. However, if you're looking for another horrible yawner of a flick, watch Matewan by John Sayles. I had to review it for a social psych class once.
I have now arrived at the conclusion that everyone who spoke out against Poshard has been killed by a mysterious militia of ninja (or pirate) hitmen sent out by the President, himself.
Let's talk about the DE for a while. Someone posted an intersting implication on the Alestle website about the credibility of the DE.
A few years ago, the DE was involved in a major journalistic hoax which supposedly featured an 8 year old girl who's father was sent to Iraq. Her mother died when she was 5, so all she had left was her daddy. After running stories for 2 years about the situation while daddy was deployed, the DE received word he was killed in action.
At this point the Tribune picked up on the story and sent a reporter to the 'memorial' service. Within a few days of investigative journalsim, the Trib found the story to be completely fabricated and linked the student editor of the DE to the whole situation.
The editor claimed he was duped, but the story given by the main conspirator claimed he knew about the hoax all along.
The editor since graduated and took a sports journalist position in Oregon, where he either took a leave or was fired due to this situation being uncovered.
The question remains, if the DE was just a victim of an elaborate hoax, which major newspaper journalists claim would require an 'insider', where were the fact checkers? Why didn't anyone figure out this was all a lie?
How can we trust this publication to be any more thorough now than it was then?
You can read the Trib 'expose' on the hoax here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0508260251aug26,1,6901924.story
More articles:
http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2005/08/27/top/13519242.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/national/27hoax.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodee_Kennings
Sara --- again. ^_^
Um, yeah actually I've heard that story before. I've taken journalism and I used to write for our newspaper, and yes the journalistic world does have a bad reputation. But it's only because we take plagiarism, false information, etc. so seriously.
People and things DO slip through the system *cough*Poshard*cough* but that doesn't mean that the Journalism league lets them get away with it. If some person was caught feeding false or plagiaristic information then they are immediately FIRED. Also, their chances of getting re-hired at ANY publication place is very, very slim. Honestly, I've never heard of anyone that ever did but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I only know about the bigger papers like the Sun Times or Tribune will NEVER hire someone who has falsified any information they print.
There has been many incidents of this type in the publication world, and they take it VERY seriously. If you want a good story though look up someone like Stephen Glass. Either way though, when you compare the systems looks like journalism is actually a lot more concerned about their integrity.
Yeah, the DE was worried about their integrity when they issued editorials which represented a small fraction of the editorial staff, which made them look like a spoiled child who didn't get Tickle Me Elmo for Christmas.
The DE was worried about their integrity when they chose to publish a photo (on the front page) of a dead student on a stretcher, taken just moments after his death.
They were also very concerned about integrity when they decided to not find out if his family had been informed before they contacted his mother. (The DE reporter broke the news of the tragedy to his mother, and I'm sure it wasn't in an accepted manner)
They were also very focused on integrity when they issued an editorial which pointed fingers and blamed everyone else for this happening, when all they had to do was issue an apology for being a journalistic failure.
This is a prime example of a newspaper which obviously takes its integrity very, very seriously.
The DE is just as concerned about 'saving face' as the university.
They just vary on the issues they are trying to 'save face' on.
Sara
I'm sorry but that says nothing about their journalistic integrity. Those are all morals, which as you stated earlier are personal opinions. No where in your retort does it say that their information was wrong...So, what's the problem?
integrity n.
1. firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
2. an unimpaired condition
3. the quality or state of being complete or undivided
The DE fails to meet any of these definitions of integrity.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, journalists should:
1. Seek the truth and report it
2. Minimize harm
3. Act independentlly
4. Be accountable.
The DE failed to accomplish either 2 or 4 in their coverage of the death of a student. The DE would rather make excuses and point fingers than to actually admit they did something wrong. They took away commenting rights for readers after a barrage of negative comments about how they've conducted themselves. All of these are integrity issues. Just as any moral or ethical question is also a question of integrity.
To be highly focused on integrity means to be highly moral and ethical.
I find it hard to believe anyone in the journalistic world would defend the actions of the DE in the matter of the student death and the hoax from a few years ago. The DE acts irresponsibly and refuses to be held accountable when they really screw things up.
Then there is the issue of the undeniable blind support for AFAC and its members. *cough*bias*cough*
Sara
Again, none of this has anything to do with the information. And either way, the DE's integrity is higher than the board's, which is what I stated. (Although, the board does not have to coincide with a journalistic integrity code). The board should have taken Poshard's degree away and been responsible for the faults of the earlier '84 group.
Also, I'd like to point out that when you're a journalists for a newspaper you have a serious deadline to consider. With TV, Radio, and internet as quicker resources it's hard to be the first to break a story. When you do break that story and get to it first that's when you've succeeded at your job. So, not waiting for a long period of time after the poor death of that student was all about the career.
And, I wasn't here when that happened so I don't know much about this, but would you happen to know why the parent's weren't told as soon as it happened?
Also, I'm just stating this because it's what I believe. If you do something wrong, I think that person/group/etc. should fess up and just try to make amends. There shouldn't be any pointing of fingers or making up of excuses.
I don't get your whole point Erik? Are we off the plagiarism topic or what? Sorry I haven't had any recent posts or comments back but I have been sick. Since I am still sick I won't be venturing down to Carbondale to speak at the BOT meeting tomorrow. :-( I don't need to get myself any sicker or anyone else sick. All I have to say is that this battle against plagiarism will not be over until Poshard resigns!
--Jill
Poshard is not the problem. The system is the problem.
Don't you see that?
If Poshard resigns, it accomplishes nothing. He is not the responsible party. The same elements of the institution which allowed this to happen will still be in place.
See my comment on the newest blog if you need further details.
"If Poshard resigns, it accomplishes nothing. He is not the responsible party." Erik
Sara - Nope, it's totally not HIS fault that he plagiarized...
Nope, it's totally not HIS fault that he plagiarized...
Exactly, that's what the review committee determined...it was inadvertant.
Poshard did not make the decision that he should keep his position. Dammit, you people are dense.
If you want to pick a fight, go after the BOT or the review committee, they are the ones that are allowing this to happen.
That's why the problem exists. Had the institution done it's job in 1984 or in 2007 this would be a non-issue.
I would also like to call for a review of all Ph.D.'s awarded in the 1980's, along with all the dissertations written by all SIU faculty. We can't be too careful when we're trying to set a standard of EQUALITY.
If this was the true goal of this witch hunt, someone would take the time to review all of the dissertations instead of singling out specific ones. This isn't rocket science people.
Do you want everything you've ever written to be scrutenized by a body of biased axe grinders?
Let he among us without sin, be the first to condemn.
We all screw up, its human nature to be flawed. I guarentee you will find the same flaws in many works of many professors in and outside of the SIU system.
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment