Post by wgt on Apr 24, 2005 13:10:32 GMT -5
Harrington’s emailed response to Derek is correct in pointing out the following very obvious facts. What Williams & Relph did was wrong. Buffalo News certainly has a right to write about it. As a writer he is not bound by students privacy, as are Universities. Evoking passionate responses from readers is good for him & his paper. And lastly, Relph’s two alcohol related incidents were indeed newsworthy. I do not dispute any of that.
I do however question Harrington’s use of language to color his writings to evoke reader emotions and responses, which he points out, are so good for his paper. Certain words & phrases can be used to distort or taint the actual facts. Like any professional writer Harrington uses words as a tool to convey the message he wants projected. In his e-mail he refers to Williams admitted action as “ACADEMIC FRAUD”, in caps. The fact is that what Williams did was to copy & paste sections of his 2-page paper (not a doctoral thesis) from two separate internet sources. He neither put the words he used in quotes nor cited his sources. Therefore he was guilty of plagiarism and punished with an F in the course & NOT allowed to withdraw from the class. However Harrington terms it “ACADEMIC FRAUD” which sounds far more serious & dramatic than plagiarism. He then states that the “professors are in revolt over the situation.” Let’s be clear, academic campuses are known as places of learning where profs bitterly disagree with each other and the administration on a myriad of issues big & small. But to state that they are in “Revolt” conjures up images of helicopters hovering over Plassman. Maybe these profs in “Revolt” have taken a student-athlete hostage.
On a factual note, I also question Harrington’s assertion that Relph “…would already be gone” if he attended a lot of other schools. I’m not at all convinced that would be the case. He’d have to convince me with “a lot of” examples of similar occurrences of expulsion for similar actions at other schools. I also quarrel with his inference that Bona & alumni don’t expect Williams & Relph “to pay the consequences” and they are “continually coddled.” Indeed student-athletes do receive preferential treatment on every campus across the country. This is probably less the case at Bona. However Harrington will soon see that Bona’s treatment of these two cases will lack any preferential treatment. In fact, I expect that they will he held to a more stringent and higher standard than if they were not student-athletes.
Interesting that Harrington then ends his e-mail referring to these terrible deeds as just “foolish shenanigans.” Classifying them as such would seem to minimize their seriousness & be inconsistent with his overall opinion.
I also take exception with his statement that Bona loves “…. to hide behind privacy when things go awry.” He knows full well that Bona is bound by law to not release the information he was attempting to get. Once again, this negative characterization is misleading at best.
Harrington studied journalism and I’m sure worked very hard to become a professional writer. He is trained in the use of words & is well aware of how to turn a phrase to communicate what he wants. I am also quite sure that Mike never once during his academic days ever used words of another without properly using quotes or citing the source. Harrington certainly never did what is rampant (and wrong) on college campuses in improper use of the internet in writing papers & purchasing entire papers far greater that 2 pages.
I am disturbed that these incidents occurred & am confident that Bona will render penalties more severe than most other colleges. That does not mean that I can’t challenge the tone and accuracy of Harrington’s writing on the matter.
Thanks Derek for emailing Harrington & sharing his response.
I do however question Harrington’s use of language to color his writings to evoke reader emotions and responses, which he points out, are so good for his paper. Certain words & phrases can be used to distort or taint the actual facts. Like any professional writer Harrington uses words as a tool to convey the message he wants projected. In his e-mail he refers to Williams admitted action as “ACADEMIC FRAUD”, in caps. The fact is that what Williams did was to copy & paste sections of his 2-page paper (not a doctoral thesis) from two separate internet sources. He neither put the words he used in quotes nor cited his sources. Therefore he was guilty of plagiarism and punished with an F in the course & NOT allowed to withdraw from the class. However Harrington terms it “ACADEMIC FRAUD” which sounds far more serious & dramatic than plagiarism. He then states that the “professors are in revolt over the situation.” Let’s be clear, academic campuses are known as places of learning where profs bitterly disagree with each other and the administration on a myriad of issues big & small. But to state that they are in “Revolt” conjures up images of helicopters hovering over Plassman. Maybe these profs in “Revolt” have taken a student-athlete hostage.
On a factual note, I also question Harrington’s assertion that Relph “…would already be gone” if he attended a lot of other schools. I’m not at all convinced that would be the case. He’d have to convince me with “a lot of” examples of similar occurrences of expulsion for similar actions at other schools. I also quarrel with his inference that Bona & alumni don’t expect Williams & Relph “to pay the consequences” and they are “continually coddled.” Indeed student-athletes do receive preferential treatment on every campus across the country. This is probably less the case at Bona. However Harrington will soon see that Bona’s treatment of these two cases will lack any preferential treatment. In fact, I expect that they will he held to a more stringent and higher standard than if they were not student-athletes.
Interesting that Harrington then ends his e-mail referring to these terrible deeds as just “foolish shenanigans.” Classifying them as such would seem to minimize their seriousness & be inconsistent with his overall opinion.
I also take exception with his statement that Bona loves “…. to hide behind privacy when things go awry.” He knows full well that Bona is bound by law to not release the information he was attempting to get. Once again, this negative characterization is misleading at best.
Harrington studied journalism and I’m sure worked very hard to become a professional writer. He is trained in the use of words & is well aware of how to turn a phrase to communicate what he wants. I am also quite sure that Mike never once during his academic days ever used words of another without properly using quotes or citing the source. Harrington certainly never did what is rampant (and wrong) on college campuses in improper use of the internet in writing papers & purchasing entire papers far greater that 2 pages.
I am disturbed that these incidents occurred & am confident that Bona will render penalties more severe than most other colleges. That does not mean that I can’t challenge the tone and accuracy of Harrington’s writing on the matter.
Thanks Derek for emailing Harrington & sharing his response.
