|
|
|
|
  |
 |
|
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
|
|
|
||
 |
|
||
|
|
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
Letters Who’s Cheating Whom? So
many good things to read, so much innovation, so much caring about
our world’s marginalized and disenfranchised people in the
OAM! But oh, the sadness I feel in my heart upon reading “The
Business of Cheating Stirs New Solutions” (Fall 2001). I’m
sad not just because Oberlin students have to be taught by librarians
how to appropriately use information, or that a citation guide is
being developed, or that first-year students will discuss the ethics
of scholarship in small-group settings, or even that an ad-hoc committee
has been allowed to review the Honor Code. I am sad mainly because
a climate has been allowed to develop by default—or is it neglect—which
even makes discussion of and action on this issue necessary. I suppose
I’ve been gone from Oberlin long enough to be classified as
an old “fuddy-duddy,” yet it seems to me that the specialness,
the uniqueness of the Oberlin experience that has given this beloved
institution its world-renown reputation for some 168 years went
beyond social agenda, justice issues, sexual-preference issues,
gender equality, even racial equality…far enough to include
things like honesty, honor, and academic integrity. As Jim Helms
rightly says, “However, the system will work only if the students
are committed to it.” May I be so bold as to add my own “however?”
However, the system will also work only if faculty have the honesty,
honor, and academic integrity to name the behavior and deal with
it, “perceived inconsistencies” or “time required
of them in the follow-up hearing of a case” be damned. Forgive
me, please; I’m feeling a little betrayed today… |
|
back to top |