Sensationalistic news\nYour headline: "$20,000 violin missing in School of Music thefts," is an example of sensationalistic journalism. Sure $20,000 is a big number and will attract attention. However, that number added nothing to the story that followed. You didn't tell us whether the violin was particularly expensive or not, or any other information relevant to the price stated. The opinion cartoon the following day is just a cheap shot, apparently also designed to draw a reaction. The students that I see driving around campus in automobiles worth far more than $20,000, and presumably living in the luxury apartments that said automobiles are often parked in front of, have items worth as much or more than that violin. The difference is that this violin is a necessity for the student to practice, to pass classes, to complete his degree. I think that all students should be able to relate to a situation that makes it impossible to make any progress in their studies, whether that situation is caused by the theft of a violin, theft of all of your books, or something else. \nThe IDS is not a world-class newspaper, but a training ground for journalists. This headline and cartoon are examples of what not to do in a professional newspaper. With a School of Journalism named after Ernie Pyle, we can and should expect better from the IDS staff. \nJohn A. Johnson\nGraduate student
Copycat Blues\nI applaud the IDS for holding the University accountable for its role in producing plagiarism on campus. Not only is the academic code regarding plagiarism ambiguous, but further examination reveals it to be virtually impossible to obey. To illustrate: Back in the early days of my college experience, I was over at one of the local fraternities getting some help with my paper. People were trying to clarify the assignment for me by showing me a lot of examples of what a suitable response might look like. Upon looking over one of them, I discovered that it perfectly articulated "my idea" ... that, in fact, it was my idea. And it was written very much in the words I might have used. How can any disciplinary code insist that borrowed work does not reflect the student's chain of thinking, unless they also want to argue that because something was thought by one person it may never be independently thought by any other person? How can the University prove that this wasn't my original thought? Will we soon require mindscanners to prove plagiarism? I think not. After all, given that part of a successful liberal arts education involves mastering the great ideas of our civilization (even if they have been thought of by others before, and of course they have) and making them our own, how can we be faulted for treading over familiar academic ground? Isn't that what we should be doing? When we see the regulations against plagiarism in this light, I think we must concede that the little problem of what words we use should be made secondary to the process of thinking and learning we are trying to master. In conclusion, I would like to propose the following revision to academic policy: Rather than requiring students to write "original" work as a demonstration of their learning (what does writing have to do with learning, anyway?), the University should ask students to find an existing paper that perfectly expresses their thinking on the topic, and grade them on the appropriateness of their choice. Or, if we must keep the plagiarism code, wouldn't it be more fair to also grade the act of plagiarism itself, and maybe average that grade with the student's existing grade for the semester? Shouldn't students be given credit for degrees of intelligence in plagiarizing, and for making a smart choice? In my W131 class, we read the work of a woman named Diane Barthel, who argues that precision and choice are positive things that have always been rewarded in our culture. This refusal to honor a good choice in plagiarizing is a shameful double standard. Why shouldn't the University reward students for culturally desirable skills which, if encouraged, are sure to bring them success in the real world?\nSara Biggs Chaney\nGraduate student
Professional Academics\nIn your Editorial Board op-ed of Oct. 8, "Accidental Cheaters: Students Not the Only Ones Responsible for Plagiarism," you make a good point. The University should indeed "make the code guidelines more strict and require that professors seek the same level of disciplinary action while effectively educating the student body" on plagiarism. However, this is really the only good point among a series of grave misconceptions. \nThe true fault of this editorial lies in your unflattering assumptions about students generally, and about IU students in particular. Your introductory claim that taking time to cite sources and follow universally acknowledged academic ethical standards is "usually time (students) don't have" represents students unfairly in two ways. First, it characterizes students not as serious individuals doing meaningful intellectual work, but as people satisfied only to do the mere minimum of work in order to eke by. A works cited page -- the rules for which, incidentally, can be found in any handbook, on the Internet, or at our local library -- is not something to be tacked on minutes before class. Rather, recognizing one's sources indicates a standard level of professionalism unanimously required by professors and indeed by professionals.\nSecond, and perhaps more damning, you represent students as unwilling or worse, unable to act in their own best interests. When you ask, "How many students have honestly taken the time to schedule an appointment to discuss an issue they believe they'll never have to face?" you appeal to -- even exploit -- the worst cultural stereotype facing students today: indifference to their own higher education. Ironically, then, your editorial employs the stereotype of the lazy undergrad in the service of an argument for academic laziness. \nBut, as instructors, our experience largely has been that IU students do take their education seriously. Despite rising instances of reported plagiarism, the vast majority of students aren't plagiarists, a fact that suggests a prevailing understanding of what constitutes right and wrong. \nIgnorance of university policies and academic standards is, in the final analysis, the responsibility of students to cure, and at the end of the day, the only person to blame for plagiarism is the plagiarist. University policy requires that instructors acquaint students with their plagiarism policies, but the University also assumes what you apparently do not: that students are adults, capable of clarifying any institutional ambiguities when it comes to something as serious as theft. \nBryan B. Rasmussen \nCelia Barnes Rasmussen\nGraduate students, Department of English
Poor excuses\nOnce again, I am struck by the ignorance of the anonymous editorial that appeared in (the Oct. 8) IDS. Plagiarism is in no way the responsibility of the University -- it is the result of, at best, laziness, and at worst, arrogance and fraudulence, on the part of students. There is no excuse for academic dishonesty -- it is reprehensible on many levels, not the least of which is the bad name it gives the majority of people who work very hard and acknowledge their sources. Please, IDS staff writers, stop making excuses for students. If we haven't learned to take responsibility for our actions by ages 18-22, college is the time to learn, and we don't need the culture of blamelessness that this paper often seems to propagate. (On that note, it would be nice to see a return to staff editorials of the past, where the editorial is signed or at least a staff vote is noted -- whoever is writing these asinine commentaries needs the courage to own up to their own.) \nIt's not a matter of not being sure of the proper way to cite something -- this is a poor excuse and one that wouldn't hold up in the "real world," let alone in academia where the stakes are so high. If a student is in doubt of whether or not to cite a source, cite it. The editorial faultily claims that sometimes students simply don't have time to cite a source properly. Here's an idea: make time. Even if the student is writing the paper in the hour before it is due and presumably doesn't have the time to check with a professor, writing tutor or any person with common sense, don't run the risk of jeopardizing an academic -- and potentially a professional -- career. Citation is not just a matter of IU's Code of Student Behavior, but also a matter of legality. The consequences of the willy-nilly lifting of other's ideas and words are a serious matter: find out for yourself at www.hg.org/intell.html. \nIt's been my experience that professors have a very clear idea of what constitutes plagiarism -- their professional lives are consumed by it. What constitutes plagiarism has been explained very clearly -- ad nauseam, I dare say -- at the beginning of every class I have taken at this University. The accusation of this editorial's author that standards differ from class to class seems silly and immature, and sounds just like the rest of the piece: a whiny excuse. And no, it's not unreasonable for a student to arm themselves with the most information possible about the criminality of plagiarism -- even if it means taking 10 minutes to go online (or read the code that is passed out to all freshmen) to understand the University's policy. Furthermore, to counter the position of the IDS, it's not a policy concern for the University to see a decline in plagiarism cases by rewriting its policy; it's a policy concern to prosecute each and every case discovered. \nAnd remember: honesty isn't something that is foisted upon students by a hard-nosed, unreasonable professor or administrator -- it's a valuable life lesson. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best: "Intelligence plus character -- this is the goal of true education." \nLeah Nahmias\nSenior
Speech team misrepresented\nI'm writing in response to Kathleen Quilligan's article about public speaking anxiety that ran Wednesday. Most of her article focuses on a business presentation class (X104) and the Toastmasters club -- having no affiliation with either, I make no claims about how accurately Quilligan depicts these programs. She does, however, briefly discuss the IU speech team, and I believe that she misrepresents the team's work. Quilligan writes, "'We're leaving at 3 p.m. on Friday,' said team coach Matt McGarrity, giving the team some information about the upcoming Western Kentucky tournament." While this sentence does capture the team's love of 3 p.m. in sparkling detail, it does not explain the IU speech team's study of rhetoric and eloquence. Yet my contention is not with the author's odd choice of quotations, but with the article's implication that a study of public speaking amounts to little more than controlling nervousness. \nAs the article suggests, the IU speech team (and by extension the Department of Communication and Culture) does help students "cope" with public speaking anxiety, but we do so through a study of argumentation and good writing, not through a study of hand gestures and verbal tics. Quilligan opines, "The old adage 'practice makes perfect' seems true for public speaking." Not necessarily. A speaker also should have something to say and know how to say it. Speakers can practice as much as they want, but if they lack an understanding of rich language and coherent argumentation, they may be perfectly inarticulate. \nI think many of the problems with the article stem from an overemphasis on delivery. That is, Quilligan, and many of those she interviewed, focus solely on the performance of a speech in front of an audience, and not the hours of research and writing that should go into the preparation of a speech. The members of the IU speech team are excellent speakers because they write so many speeches, as well as deliver them. This capacity to construct a sound and persuasive message in a variety of different settings far outstrips the ability to avoid saying "um" while speaking. \nMatt McGarrity\nGraduate student and Co-Director of Forensics
Lazy students\nIn response to "Skating through college" (Jake Rossman, IDS, Oct. 8), I'm glad that there are students that recognize the difference between an education and a degree. It is unfortunate that a genuine curiosity and interest in learning doesn't motivate many students to do more than slack off and cram before exams. It truly isn't possible to obtain a rich understanding of course material or develop a good understanding of a subject by only cramming before the exam. In college, students should be cultivating a thorough understanding of the world around them, and developing intellectual curiosity that may be more likely to come from class discussions, lectures, class exercises and other forms of class participation.\nThere are several problems with the way the system perpetuates such sloth. For example, professors' salaries are linked to their class evaluations. Students tend to provide poor evaluations of professors who don't make the class easy for them. For example, I've overheard several professors complain about the poor evaluations that may be expected if they don't provide class notes for their students. Are students here really so lazy that they can graduate without learning how to take notes? Moreover, students are not being prepared to enter the work environment. Employers don't expect employees to cram before a big meeting and simply recite information they just reviewed. Employers value people who can contribute to group discussions, be inspired by their work and think beyond what is merely provided for them. I think a lot of slackers, such as the old roommate discussed in the article, will have a lot of high expectations for their degree that may not be able to be met if they didn't acquire the additional skills that are not so obvious on the final exam.\nKahni Clements\nGraduate student
Stupid white female\nThis is a warning to all the readers, yes this is another one of my racial rants, my third of the year in the IDS. So you can skip to the next page and read your horoscope or buckle up for a quick history lesson.\nI hate to steal from other writers, but Marge Kiefer (IDS, Oct 7) is a stupid white woman (a take on Michael Moore's Stupid White Men). She obliviously misses the point of Jack Silverstein's article ("Who can be racist?" IDS, Oct. 3) like the IU football team misses winning, and that's bad (sorry guys, I have been holding that in for the past few weeks). \nNow I'm not even going to address the whole issue of "Who can be Racist," I think Mr. Silverstein did a fine job of addressing that in his article. But Marge digresses from the point of the article to talk about how some blacks call themselves African Americans and not Americans. \nNow here is the quick history lesson and maybe, Marge, you should look at the other side of the coin. In 1787 the U.S. Constitution was passed and slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. In 1896, "separate but equal" facilities for blacks and whites was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, and we all know how that turned out. Then The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is passed by Congress. You see it is not a matter of blacks not considering themselves American; it has been America not considering blacks American. And to say that the legacy and effects of slavery still do not last to this day is plain ignorance. If slavery was abolished in 1865, then why did it take 99 years to give full rights to African Americans (with things such as redlining, linguistic profiling, racial profiling, the discrepancy between African-American drug use and their arrest rates, one could argue African Americans still are not extended full citizenship). Remember Jim Crow laws existed all the way up into the late '60s and they were a direct effect of slavery. Now honestly, do you think after hundreds of years of enslavement then more intuitional racism, that one day, "bang!" African Americans were equal in this country? \nNow you say you have been around a lot, which I don't disagree with. But for someone who lives in Roachdale, Ind., which according to the 2000 U.S. Census, has a population of 975 and 968 of those are white, I do wonder what exactly "have you seen that goes on in this world." And last time I checked, race relations is an "important issue" in this world. \nRahsaan D. Bartet\nJunior
Misguided Carr\nWhenever I read Vincent Carr's work, I am torn.\nDo I respond to the issues he attempts to address (public schools are horrendous and private schools are the only hope)? Or should I respond to the issues he unintentionally inserts, which in turn, corrupt his argument (affirmative action, one-sided research and diversity as "sacrifice")?\nI choose to respond to his intended topic. \nClearly Mr. Carr presents the private versus public debate in a rather simplified way. Having been a teacher at both private and public schools in Indiana and New York, I have first-hand knowledge that private schools are as varied as public schools in their success rates, curricular approaches, resources and support for families and children. \nIt is extremely important to remember that private schools are first and foremost a business and they must make certain choices to ensure that they will remain economically viable -- meaning profitable. Many times this means that private schools are unable or unwilling to provide appropriate services to special needs students without charging additional fees.\nMr. Carr's opinions about private and public schools reflect a lack of accurate information. Certainly, he should know that "social promotion" is not generally offered in the current "testing as reform" regime. Surely he is aware that public schools are unable to reform the home lives of students even when students are, as Mr. Carr states, "roaming the streets." Additionally, it is important to consider that vouchers are short-term solutions that seem to provide parents choices, but fail to address the underlying issues. They are, in effect, like placing a Band-Aid on a broken leg.\nMr. Carr was misguided in his thinking. It is simplistic to say that private schools are good and public schools are the problem. Poverty is a problem. Families in crisis are a problem. Lack of early literacy skills is a problem. Tax-based funding and districts drawn by socio-economic lines are a problem. Inadequate staff development is a problem. And the list goes on. These problems need solutions and generally solutions require resources: time and money being the most precious.\nMary Pavesi-Roderique\nIU alumna and Bloomington resident
