The Ethics of Anonymity
After the publishing of the May 2006 The Shield article “McClain’s Speech Prompts Healthy Discussions,” it has become painfully obvious that Dr. Barton and certain members of the Rochester College administration have failed to adequately address the objections we raised concerning Mr. McClain’s Black History Month speech that was delivered on February 15, 2006. The article supposedly overlooks our factual arguments because of our anonymity. In the May 2006 issue of The Shield, Dr. Barton faults us for our use of anonymity while leaving a loophole for historical cases in which the use of anonymity not only occurred, but was necessary: “While I do think anonymity has its place (e.g. there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hostile environment), anonymity can also create an atmosphere where writers are not as careful as they would have been if their name had been attached.”
Dr. Barton continues, “…Such tendencies are evident as several of the student writers, for example, make indicting claims about Mr. McClain’s motives, his “political agenda,” and his “lack of spirituality.” This is where Dr. Barton’s analysis truly goes astray. He claims that the student writers (us) made indicting claims about McClain’s “lack of spirituality.” This is simply not true. Several writers did indeed express dissatisfaction with McClain’s speech, but they most certainly did not make unsubstantiated accusations against Mr. McClain himself. Dr. Barton has essentially put words into our mouths; he offers no direct quotes from our article (other than the three-words-total of “spirituality” and “political agenda,” both quoted in other places in his article and neither pertinent to this accusation) to support his accusation that we have personally attacked McClain for his “lack of spirituality.” As for the claim that we have accused Mr. McClain of having a “political agenda,” Dr. Barton misrepresents our statement here once again. The actual statement we made was, “It seemed almost as if there were some political agenda behind his words.” The qualifiers “seemed almost as if” make it clear that the writers were speaking of how they experienced the speech, not how they knew Mr. McClain had a political agenda behind the speech beyond any doubt. These tenative observations were not made upon conjecture about McClain’s personal life, but upon the fact that he had plagiarised the “A World without Black People” from an anonymous e-mail chain letter.
Another problematic element of Dr. Barton’s analysis, as mentioned above, is where he acknowledges the proper place (in his opinion, that is) of anonymity: “there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hostile environment.” Dr. Barton implies by this that what we have said in this blog is neither important nor is it in what we consider a hostile environment. On the first claim, we argue that what has been published in this blog is indeed important. The Rochester Code of Academic Integrity defines plagiarism as “Presenting the ideas, words, or product of another as one’s own. It is using someone else’s work or ideas without giving that person appropriate credit. Whether the information used is read or heard, the one using it must document the source.” As proven by the contents of this blog, McClain’s “A World without Black People” sub-speech was clearly not his own work and he never cited the original source of the story (riddled with errors as it was). Thus, McClain’s sub-speech “A World without Black People” within his speech presentation of “I’m Still Standing, I’m Still Strong!” is not only morally reprehensible, but a serious breach of the Code of Academic Integrity as well. If Dr. Barton does not consider this fact alone to be important and warranting a fair representation of our of arguments on this blog, then he, other members of the Rochester College Administration, and the Diversity Committee (along with its associates, the members of the Student Action Diversity Committee) should seriously examine whether or not truth takes precedence over political correctness at Rochester College.
Dr. Barton acknowledges that, throughout history, anonymity has been used in environments that writers considered to be hostile as they spoke out with an unpopular message. Dr. Barton also states that, in his opinion, a liberal arts environment is Christian because it allows, “difficult discussion in an atmosphere where truthfulness is sought, and humility, forgiveness, respect, grace, and trust, are offered in other-worldly measure.” As we revealed in this article, however, despite his lofty ideals, Dr. Barton has misrepresented our arguments and clearly not sought the truth in this case. So far, every attempt by the Rochester College Administration and the Diversity Committee to deal with this blog has dealt with it unfairly. In fact, his response, among the many others we received, has done more to justify our choice of anonymity than we had originally expected. In addition to this, several students, including one particularly enraged student on the blog, have insulted the writers of this blog, misrepresented our arguments, and derided the blog without taking into account the facts behind our reasoning. In light of these developments, we do indeed feel that the environment surrounding Rochester College around the time of McClain’s speech justified our choice of anonymity.
Sincerely,
Tacitus and Aquinas
Dr. Barton continues, “…Such tendencies are evident as several of the student writers, for example, make indicting claims about Mr. McClain’s motives, his “political agenda,” and his “lack of spirituality.” This is where Dr. Barton’s analysis truly goes astray. He claims that the student writers (us) made indicting claims about McClain’s “lack of spirituality.” This is simply not true. Several writers did indeed express dissatisfaction with McClain’s speech, but they most certainly did not make unsubstantiated accusations against Mr. McClain himself. Dr. Barton has essentially put words into our mouths; he offers no direct quotes from our article (other than the three-words-total of “spirituality” and “political agenda,” both quoted in other places in his article and neither pertinent to this accusation) to support his accusation that we have personally attacked McClain for his “lack of spirituality.” As for the claim that we have accused Mr. McClain of having a “political agenda,” Dr. Barton misrepresents our statement here once again. The actual statement we made was, “It seemed almost as if there were some political agenda behind his words.” The qualifiers “seemed almost as if” make it clear that the writers were speaking of how they experienced the speech, not how they knew Mr. McClain had a political agenda behind the speech beyond any doubt. These tenative observations were not made upon conjecture about McClain’s personal life, but upon the fact that he had plagiarised the “A World without Black People” from an anonymous e-mail chain letter.
Another problematic element of Dr. Barton’s analysis, as mentioned above, is where he acknowledges the proper place (in his opinion, that is) of anonymity: “there have been many authors in history who have used it in order to say something important in what they considered a hostile environment.” Dr. Barton implies by this that what we have said in this blog is neither important nor is it in what we consider a hostile environment. On the first claim, we argue that what has been published in this blog is indeed important. The Rochester Code of Academic Integrity defines plagiarism as “Presenting the ideas, words, or product of another as one’s own. It is using someone else’s work or ideas without giving that person appropriate credit. Whether the information used is read or heard, the one using it must document the source.” As proven by the contents of this blog, McClain’s “A World without Black People” sub-speech was clearly not his own work and he never cited the original source of the story (riddled with errors as it was). Thus, McClain’s sub-speech “A World without Black People” within his speech presentation of “I’m Still Standing, I’m Still Strong!” is not only morally reprehensible, but a serious breach of the Code of Academic Integrity as well. If Dr. Barton does not consider this fact alone to be important and warranting a fair representation of our of arguments on this blog, then he, other members of the Rochester College Administration, and the Diversity Committee (along with its associates, the members of the Student Action Diversity Committee) should seriously examine whether or not truth takes precedence over political correctness at Rochester College.
Dr. Barton acknowledges that, throughout history, anonymity has been used in environments that writers considered to be hostile as they spoke out with an unpopular message. Dr. Barton also states that, in his opinion, a liberal arts environment is Christian because it allows, “difficult discussion in an atmosphere where truthfulness is sought, and humility, forgiveness, respect, grace, and trust, are offered in other-worldly measure.” As we revealed in this article, however, despite his lofty ideals, Dr. Barton has misrepresented our arguments and clearly not sought the truth in this case. So far, every attempt by the Rochester College Administration and the Diversity Committee to deal with this blog has dealt with it unfairly. In fact, his response, among the many others we received, has done more to justify our choice of anonymity than we had originally expected. In addition to this, several students, including one particularly enraged student on the blog, have insulted the writers of this blog, misrepresented our arguments, and derided the blog without taking into account the facts behind our reasoning. In light of these developments, we do indeed feel that the environment surrounding Rochester College around the time of McClain’s speech justified our choice of anonymity.
Sincerely,
Tacitus and Aquinas
posted by an analytical college student | 4:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home