Dear Readers,
As reported elsewhere in the pages of this issue, the office of Student Affairs sent out an email announcing the University was officially changing the name of “Dead Week,” the period before finals in which no campus events are to be held, to “Study Weeks.” Almost immediately, it was discovered that the message sent out to every student on this campus may have been plagiarised from Wikipedia, featuring the exact same language featured on its “Dead Week” article.
In Judicial Affairs’ policy regarding academic honesty, plagiarism is defined as “presenting the work of others as one’s own,” further adding “It is unethical to copy directly the words or work of other authors or artists without giving them credit.” It goes on: “Quoting without the use of quotation marks falsely implies originality and is, therefore, an act of plagiarism.”
Well before students enter college, they are warned countless times by their high school teachers about the penalties for plagiarism; once they arrive at Fredonia, they are warned even more. A standard syllabus in a course threatens discipline, which often includes an automatic grade of an “F” in the course and the potential for suspension or expulsion from the college as a whole. Simply put, a student could not have lifted paragraphs from a Wikipedia article in a paper without seriously endangering their entire college career. (I should note, too, that plagiarism is obviously not tolerated in the pages of this newspaper, and corrective measures are taken against any writer who is found guilty of it.)
However, you don’t need to be a philosophy minor like me to realize that just about any question of ethics can become dicey. As one of my professors pointed out to me, there is a difference between writing an email and submitting a paper for a course; there is also the question of what kinds of information ought to be cited in the first place. I don’t believe that Student Affairs committed a cardinal sin, and I don’t think anyone had the intention to deceive. But we shouldn’t ignore those who are angry, as they have good reason to feel that way.
When I talk to my peers about the email, they are disgruntled, accusatory, even unable to take the University seriously. I’m sure many professors feel worse, knowing they must still prosecute against student plagiarism but with their credibility compromised by being associated with this email.
I am writing this before we go to press on April 3. This morning, the campus received another email calling “the use of any material without acknowledgement of a source” a “serious concern” and the email as a whole “a poor example for our students.” I agree, but I also must wonder why it took five days for students to receive this apology in the first place.
I know that our administration makes itself available to students, and I have been told that Vice President Cedric Howard is inviting any and all with concerns about these events to speak to him directly. But where’s the mass email saying so?
Where are our priorities, as an academic institution, if we send out a message to every single student about a clown sighting in downtown Fredonia, but we can’t swiftly address an allegation of plagiarism perpetrated against the entire campus?
Many students and professors likely feel that this is a textbook instance of plagiarism. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they aren’t. Where there is no debate is that there is now a loss in confidence from the student body in the University’s ability to abide by the very rules it imposes, and the University must address that further.
My hope is that we can have an open dialogue about this, one that is constructive and honest and not just conducted behind closed office doors; my hope is that we can come to an understanding of what happened, why it happened and where we go from here. If we cannot or will not learn from this, then the very mission of SUNY Fredonia might need re-evaluation.
Colin Perry
Editor in Chief