--- Forwarded Message from "Read Gilgen" <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 08:26:15 -0500
>From: "Read Gilgen" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #7574 LangLab director with "fraudulent" PhD
Hmmm... interesting indeed.
I suppose my take encompasses a couple of things:
1. If the position indeed requires a Ph.D. and the institution deems
her not to have a legitimate Ph.D., then they need to rewrite the
position and open it (possibly hiring her), or they need to admit the
mistake and fire her.
2. All the ethical arguments about "harming the students" are nothing
more than an attempt to justify keeping a person in a position for which
she may not have met the requirements. There are plenty of qualified
folks out there who can step in and do a superb job.
That being said, it sounds like she does a great job, the folks there
like the job she does, and the two sides should work together to find a
way to keep her. But if they insist on keeping job requirements which
she doesn't have, they should bite the bullet and make a change.
OK, one more take... What about all those folks who have "legitimate"
PhDs, but who are lousy teachers, don't meet students for office hours,
drag their feet with dissertation advisees, won't fully participate in
departmental governance (committees, etc.), yet remain because somehow
they managed to gain tenure. This doesn't excuse the Phoebe case, but
it does make one wonder whether these same junior faculty who are ready
to raise their voices in protest would do the same against tenured but
clearly unproductive colleagues.
Thanks Nina for bringing this discussion to the list. Great food for
thought...
>>> [log in to unmask] 7/1/2004 3:12:48 PM >>>
--- Forwarded Message from Nina Garrett <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:27:09 -0400
>To: "'Language Learning and Technology International Information
Forum'"
<[log in to unmask]>
>From: Nina Garrett <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: LangLab director with "fraudulent" PhD
Hi all --
This is in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, for
which
"Ms. Mentor" writes a regular column. The tone of the letter of
inquiry
irritates me very much indeed*, but I think Ms. Mentor's advice is at
least
thoughtful and humane. What do you think?
Best,
Nina
* e.g., phrases like "she does what we don't want to -- she runs the
language lab" and "We suspect that the dean and other administrators
already know, but don't want to be bothered" and "if we get rid of her,
we
may wind up with someone" ... etc.
A Fraud and a Great Teacher
Ms. Mentor
Words of wisdom about academic culture
Question: My colleague "Phoebe" is a fraud, and the rest of us in the
department have known it for years. Her dissertation, which she claimed
was
original work, is actually a translation of another scholar's
dissertation
in an obscure language, with a few extra pieces thrown in.
But no one confronts Phoebe, because she does what we don't want to --
she
runs the language lab. She also does it superbly, serving as a mentor
to
countless students. Still, she doesn't have an honest Ph.D., and some
new
colleagues believe we ought to expose her to somebody -- her grad
school,
our department chair, our human resources staff, our dean, the local
sensationalist paper....
We suspect that the dean and other administrators already know, but
don't
want to be bothered. She's now coming up for contract renewal -- but if
we
get rid of her, we may wind up with someone who won't run the language
lab
so conscientiously and cheerfully. Sometimes we think we should just
continue our silence, since we don't have tenure, and the only reason
to
speak out is for Justice and Fairness, things that we've seen don't
exist
anyway.
Answer: Ms. Mentor hears a chorus of her readers bellowing: "Fire
Phoebe!"
After all, if Phoebe is a vile plagiarist, and if we condone such
academic
dishonesty, we are violating the most sacred canons of truth and
original
inquiry and throwing offal on the ivory tower.
But....
Phoebe does her job magnificently, and the world of language teaching
needs
Phoebes to inspire students. Would an outsider with a pristine Ph.D. do
better?
Ms. Mentor, in her perfect wisdom, sees two competing ethical systems
in
your letter. One is the role of rules in academe, the abstract
absolutes
that are supposed to govern our lives. The other is the ethic of care
for
others, the responsibility to students. (Scholars of ethics will
recognize
these competing beliefs from Carol Gilligan's A Different Voice, as
well as
Portia's speech on justice and mercy in The Merchant of Venice.)
If Phoebe is fired, the rule-mongers will be satisfied -- but students
will
lose.
And yet, can you simply ignore what you know about Phoebe's
dissertation?
You already have. Stringent academics might view you and your
colleagues as
accessories, handmaidens to a coverup. If you do decide to denounce
her,
how can you explain your silence in the past? And won't the bad
publicity
make your dean very, very angry? And if your dean is the punitive sort,
and
you come up for tenure...?
By now Ms. Mentor's readers are frothing and fuming in all directions.
She
urges them to sit down, have a cold drink, think deep ethical thoughts,
and
ponder parallel situations.
Jayson Blair, for instance, famously fabricated stories in The New
York
Times, misleading his readers about the Washington-area snipers,
Jessica
Lynch, and much more. He was fired, as were his bosses.
Meanwhile Quincy Troupe, named as the first poet laureate of
California,
was discovered not to have the college degree that he claimed -- though
he
had published 13 books and served as a mentor to hundreds of budding
writers. He was fired as poet laureate.
Ms. Mentor agrees that Jayson Blair should have been bounced, but
wonders
about Quincy Troupe, 62 years old, with decades of accomplishments. Did
a
degree matter at that point? Why didn't his undergraduate college
simply
award him an honorary degree?
She returns now, more calmly, to creative solutions for Phoebe and the
colleagues who know that her dissertation is less than original, but
who
value her contributions to teaching.
Phoebe is not exactly a plagiarist. She is an appropriator. Since her
degree is in foreign languages, a field where translations are
acceptable
dissertation topics, it could be said that her dissertation is merely
mislabeled. Instead of calling it an original piece of work, she and
her
committee should have called it a translation with commentary. Ms.
Mentor
wonders if Phoebe's graduate school would be amenable to such a
labeling
change.
Meanwhile, Phoebe's job may also be mislabeled. Since language-lab
coordinators are not always required to hold Ph.D.'s, perhaps the job
could
be readvertised as a master's-level position. Phoebe would then qualify
as
an outstanding internal candidate.
Ms. Mentor, with infinite tact, rarely tells people what they must do.
But
she insists that they consider alternatives, and envision where each
path
will lead them. Often what seems to be the path of righteousness is
also
the path of shooting oneself in the foot.
Phoebe has made a mistake, but she may very well be a sinner worth
saving
for a higher good.
Nina Garrett, Director
Center for Language Study
Yale University
P.O. Box 208349
New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8349
Tel: (203) 432-8196
Fax. (203) 432-4485
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cls.yale.edu
|
