What was Swept Under the Rug Months ago
The real problem with the speech however, is when the "facts" in McClain's "inventor's section" was backtracked, it was found to be not only full of innaccuracies and even blatant lies, but the entire "A World Without Black People" section was plagiarized word for word from an anonymous internet email chain letter!
"Dean Cain,
On February 15, in Assembly, the speaker introduced by J.C. Thomas gave a speech in honor of Black History month. Normally assemblies have a spiritual message relevant to all who attend, but in this case it was exactly the opposite. The message had nothing spiritually relevant about it. The section of the speech that is particularly in question is the speaker’s summary of African-American inventions in his “A World without Black People” mini-speech. To be sure, we admire his basic argument: African-Americans have made America a better place to live in for all. However, the “A World without Black People” section of his speech betrays his motives in the most critical way. The original source of this fellow’s information was not his own work, but in fact an anonymous internet e-mail chain letter that has been circulating around the net for years. This letter is riddled with half truths and blatant lies, and much of what our assembly’s speaker said for that section was plagiarized word for word from the letter! Please see Snopes.com here for a critical analysis of his letter, as well as a later variant that has also been floating around the
internet you can find at this address: www.snopes.com/business/origins/blackinv.aspThe speaker in assembly, rather than seeking to create unity, apparently focused his attention only on what divided us as a people, instead of the Gospel that unites us. It seemed almost as if there were some political agenda behind his words. While this aspect of the speech is certainly troubling to us, the fact that a speaker and speech of such low credibility and intellectual honesty was allowed to be presented to us in an academic institution is even more distressing. As students of Rochester College, we are taught to question what we are told and critically analyze messages that are presented to us. Unfortunately, the speaker’s message wholly failed to pass this test. Imagine if we presented an anonymous internet e-mail chain letter as an academic source to our professors! Why then should an assembly speaker, speaking in front of the entire student body, be held to a lesser standard? While the contents of this letter are of grave importance to us, we hope it is understood that this letter has been written not because of hatred or antagonism towards the college, but rather that we are concerned for the direction in which this college is headed. We strongly believe that Rochester College should put academic integrity and intellectual honesty among its highest priorities. With that said, due to the respect we have for this college, we feel that it is only right for the college to apologize to its student body and seek some redressing of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Concerned Students of Rochester College"
This letter was sent to Dean Cain pointing out these difficulties, asking for the student body to be informed and apologized to. Dean Cain, however, responded by saying it was a policy "not to respond to anonymous communication" and any percieved reasons for anonymity were based upon faulty reasoning. That response has been discussed in detail here, and here.
Meanwhile, Calvin Moore had been discussing this situation (to a degree) with Tacitus and I, and gave us his assurance that the issues raised on this blog would not be as he said let off the hook.
Needless to say, it was let off the hook. There was, however an article written in the Shield about the issue, but this article profoundly misrepresented the situation, made blatant evasions, and glossed over the truth. It essentially praised McClain, ignoring the fact that McClain plagiarized the piece without giving any credit at all.
Aquinas
posted by an analytical college student | 7:28 PM
12 Comments:
First, the matter has not been swept under the rug. In fact, this matter is at the forefront of how Black History Month will be addressed this upcoming year. You do not see or hear us denying the incident. You do not see us supporting the lack of research and plagiarism. Part of how we approach it is to speak about it (which I will get to in my second point) and approach BHM differently than we did before. In all honesty, I believe the way those of the older generation who particiapte in putting together BHM see things and do things a bit differently than the studetns who participate and put together events. Thus, trust that we are trying to do things differently and we welcome your input. Second, in response to the Caucasian Support Group, my ideas have somewhat sobered on the matter. However, an option for dialogue between people on both sides of that issue will be addressed in the near future. For those who were present at last week's House of God event, you all know the SADC is committed to foster DIVERSITY through different programs we hope to put together in the near future--celebrating all colors, socio-economic standings, and Christian faith traditions. Anyhow, I somewhat feel like we're beating a dead horse over last February, but I also will not forget that it happened (so as not to repeat it). Hopefully we will continue to talk.
Calvin Moore
President, SADC
Gosh. I hate when my mind won't stop...
One of the problems I find in our speech is that EVERYONE gets lumped in with everyone else. Dr. Barton's response was his own, but is then connected to J.C. Thomas, Claude Huddleston and the SADC. The first event SADC participates in is BHM last February and we are instantly (and stupidly) branded "The Black Group." The SADC had nothing to do with bringing in Mr. McClaine, yet were ridiculed for doing just that. I speak of my own volition as an educated individual, but use my title (President, SADC) to carry the weight that I deal with these issues frequently (come to an SADC meeting and this will bear itself out). It does not mean the SADC supports my opinion 100%. When I was told of the BSS group, it honestly rubbed me the wrong way. I run the DIVERSITY committee! (Ironically the SADC is now well-liked around campus by all our detractors since the inception of House of God and the "evil" BSS group has proven quite handily that we are not the black group on campus.)
So, I guess, to a degree we should be careful how we speak here...and recall that a Christ-like attitude (which I honestly haven't had all the way through every situation I've found myself in regarding these matters) is important as we approach these issues again. YHWH's peace.
Calvin,
I appreciate your point on the "lumping together of Dr. Barton, J.C. Thomas, Claude Huddleston, and the SADC. To some extent, I sympathize with you on this. However, I would argue that the QuestionTheCollege blog writers and I have not participated in this. We have dealt with Dr. Barton on his own merits, separate from the Diversity Committee and the SADC. As for Claude Huddleston, we were not even aware of his existence until recently. As for the Diversity Committee and the SADC, it is understandable, I think, that there has been confusion among some due to blurry distinctions in the actions of the two groups. I will explain this more in my next point.
To my knowledge, the blog writers here are not opposed to the SADC at all. Rather, we are disturbed at certain actions of plagiarism, misinformation, dishonesty, and harassment of dissenting. You also claim that:
"the SADC had nothing to do with bringing in Mr. McClaine, yet were ridiculed for doing just that."
Back in February, though, you defended the Rochester College Administration by saying:
"As for an apology, Dean Cain and the College had nothing to do with bringing in the speaker. The Office of Diversity Relations and the SADC did."
So which is it, Calvin? Who is really responsible? Obviously one of these statements is false, so which one should we believe? Speaking on your own behalf, you tout your title as if it lends you credibility, but actions gain my respect, not titles. If you want our trust, you cannot tell us one thing on one day and contradict that same statement on another. It is impossible to speak to one another with a Christ-like attitude when we cannot even tell each other the truth. Why are you then surprised or indignant that some students "lump together" the SADC, Diversity Committee, and the RC Administration when you cannot give us a consistent answer on who was responsible for McClaine?
You argue:
"You do not see or hear us denying the incident. You do not see us supporting the lack of research and plagiarism."
True. However, the responsible parties' avoidance of any public discussion of the matter is tantamount to tacit approval because they have (and have had for quite some time now) full knowledge of the violations of RC's academic and moral principles that took place in McClaine's presentation. Avoiding rather than denying the incident is indeed in the responsible parties' self-interest - if students were made aware of the plagiarism and misinformation in the speech, they would begin to investigate the issues for themselves and discover how Dr. Barton's article in The Shield was woefully inadequate in addressing the situation. The image of the college and/or its organization seems to be more important than honesty and truth.
The only right and respectful solution to these problems is for either the Diversity Committee, the RC Administration, or the SADC to finally apologize to the student body and inform them of the misleading information and plagiarism that was presented to them in assembly. An apology on this website is simply not sufficient, because we are only a tiny percentage of those whose trust was violated by the plagiarism and deception.
Finally, on the topic of the Caucasian Support Group, I am glad to hear that your opinions on it are not as harsh as before. Does this mean that the threats of disciplinary action are now withdrawn?
This is not about beating a dead horse at all Calvin, but defending a principle. The truth should never become a casualty of some group's or individual's ideology.
You claim that the issue will be at the "forefront of how black history month will be addressed this coming year", and that this matter has not been swept under the rug. Does this mean there will be a public apology and the rest of the student body will be made aware of the plagiarism and dishonesty?
You have been asked this question twice already Calvin, now I am asking it for the Third time.
Do you or do you not think that Dean Cain or the Rochester College Staff (or whatever related group that is responsible for the speaker) should make an announcement or apology informing the student body of the misinformation and plagiarism that was presented to them at the February 15th Assembly?
Sorry, forgot the link to Calvin's quote from February:
"As for an apology, Dean Cain and the College had nothing to do with bringing in the speaker. The Office of Diversity Relations and the SADC did."
http://questionthecollege.blogspot.com/2006/02/letter-from-concerned-students.html
Look for the thirteenth post under the topic.
I do not deny those words were mine. I misspoke in February. That is the truth of the matter. I apologize for misrepresenting the SADC's involvement. I misrepresented our support of "all things BHM" as being more involved with Mr. McClaine than we were. I can own that.
As for the issue of plagiarism not being address, Dr. Barton did answer speak to the matter. Now, it seems as if members of this blog are out for a pound of flesh regarding it. It has been addressed and will be addressed again in the near future. It will not be a part of BHM this upcoming year.
There is so much more that could be said, but I lack the time to go into it. Again, I apologize for misrepresenting the SADC's position last February and hope we can move past it and that the rest of my words do not appear or remain suspect because of a faux paus.
Once again, we have a sad misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. Moore, how would you not know what had happened when you posted in February? It was within a month of the actual speech.
Barton NEVER discussed the actual plagiarism in the newspaper. I don't blame him for not doing so. I think he was afraid that if he did his job would be in jeopardy from "the powers that be". Just don't be dishonest that he discussed the actual plagiarism. He talked about the content of the speech in the paper and the following student discussions to the contents itself after the speech was made. He made a reference to this blog, but he never disclosed the fact that the speech was nearly word for word from the chain letter.
The problem here is trust. Hopefully, the SADC and you will instill trust with us and other members of the student body.
Jimster, I believe Calvin may be referring to this quote from Barton's article:
"It has been noted by others that the section of the speech which imagines a “world without black people” is taken (verbatim at points) from an internet e-story that is in common circulation.In and of itself, I do not see that as a problem as long as the appropriate credit is given."
http://questionthecollege.blogspot.com/2006/05/as-in-shield.html
If Calvin is referring to this portion, then it would seem our friend Calvin is "misspeaking" yet again. To demonstrate this, I would like to call everyone's attention to the last portion of the quoted text.
"In and of itself, I do not see that as a problem as long as the appropriate credit is given."
The wording in this sentance is arranged in such a way as to leave the impression that the credit was given. Despite the fact that this is entirely and demonstrably untrue. (Those who did not attend themselves may see the transcripts from the African Philosophy class.) It seems that Calvin once again has "misspoke" in that he (presumably) acknowledged the fact that McClain plagiarized his speech, yet he claims Dr. Barton has given us a fair response by essentially denying the incident alltogether.
Calvin also gives (presumably) his opinion by making indicting suggestions about the blogwriters motivation, as if we were somehow attempting to create division. Nevertheless, it is dishonesty that creates division, and in the presence of falsity, true unity cannot exist.
Lastly, for the third time Calvin has not answered my question which I will ask him directly for the fourth time. "Do you, or do you not think that Dean Cain or the Rochester College Staff (or whatever related group that is responsible for the speaker) should make an announcement or apology informing the student body of the misinformation and plagiarism that was presented to them at the February 15th Assembly?"
I will answer your question directly, "Mr. McLaine should apologize directly to the student body for plagiarizing a portion of his speech...and plagiarizing a text that was already specious." Are you going to GET that apology? Not on your life. Not because you don't deserve it in some way, shape, or form, mind you. But, simply because no one cares anymore. (And to claim here that people still care but leave those people and yourselves anonymous does not help your case. An apology will not be handed out to phantoms--no matter how intelligent or how legitimate those phantoms believe their anonmynity to be.)
Second, you have relegated Dr. Barton's response to a play of words. How you read them and how I read them are a matter of interpretation. How you view the statement, "In and of itself, I do not see that as a problem as long as the appropriate credit is given," is entirely different than how I view it (I will speak to this momentarily). Beyond the writers of this website, Dr. Barton's response seems to have satisfied the matter.
However, you say:
"The wording in this sentance is arranged in such a way as to leave the impression that the credit was given. Despite the fact that this is entirely and demonstrably untrue."
Dr. Barton's response does no such thing. It takes a bit of liguistic gymnastics to accomplish the interpretation you have come up with. Dr. Barton did not make light of your complaint. He did not make light of the plagiarism. He found a happy medium. If appropriate credit had been given, half of your complaint would be invalidated--but only half. If McClaine had credited that part of his speech to someone else, you could not speak of plagiarism. So, Dr. Barton is right. His wording assumes McClaine had NOT given credit where credit was due. The thesis of his response made that clear when he spoke of writing in response to this very website.
Again, the issue has not been swept under the rug. Again, I am becoming more and more convinced that this IS, in fact, beating a dead horse. This is the point where I am going to tell the writers "Get over it." There comes a point when you must realize you are NOT going to get what you want out of something. I realized that with Caucasian Support Group, no matter how offended I was. I have realized that with the writers of this blog having the balls to speak their mind without hiding behind the skirt of anonmynity (Honestly? How many people have the College run out of town for speaking freely? This is Rochester. Not Harding.) I realized that with a number of friendships I wanted to save but couldn't. Some things are not worth fighting for. you have said your piece. You have apparently not gotten what you want (Mainly because NO olive branch is good enough.) You have affected change for how BHM will be done this February, but still you do not have enough. You have been given a pound of flesh and created more conversation about this than has been worth. We are the only ones left talking and NOW, even I am through.
I'm sure we can expect more complaints this February. I'm done. This is not a cop-out. I have answered your questions time and time again. I have spoken as honestly as possible and corrected when I have misspoken. I have learned from you, but you have not done the same in return. You have gained eveything and nothing all at once.
My efforts here have been frustrated. I will continue to work with the SADC and affect change that way. If you want to affect change, I invite you join us on Thursday evenings. YHWH's peace.
Calvin,
Thank you for answering my question, although it appears you missed the point of it altogether. The question was posed assuming McClain had already left, and I asked if you believed those responsible for bringing McClain in should (in his absence) seek to undo the damage done by the lies and plagiarism. So it seems you still haven’t really answered my question.
“Second, you have relegated Dr. Barton's response to a play of words. How you read them and how I read them are a matter of interpretation. How you view the statement, "In and of itself, I do not see that as a problem as long as the appropriate credit is given," is entirely different than how I view it (I will speak to this momentarily). Beyond the writers of this website, Dr. Barton's response seems to have satisfied the matter.”
As for Barton’s response having “satisfied the matter,” I need only make the point that the majority of students on campus even after reading Barton’s article are still in the dark about the plagiarism of the speech, and I submit to whoever reads this to examine the article for themselves to see the vacuity of Calvin’s “interpretation,”. So Calvin, regardless of whatever semantic acrobatics you feel you can justify it with, your method of “interpretation” seems to be very rare.
Barton’s article conveniently provided here in full context:
http://questionthecollege.blogspot.com/2006/05/as-in-shield.html
“Dr. Barton's response does no such thing. It takes a bit of liguistic gymnastics to accomplish the interpretation you have come up with. Dr. Barton did not make light of your complaint. He did not make light of the plagiarism. He found a happy medium.”
Here you commit a logical fallacy by ignoring the law of excluded middle, either there was plagiarism, or there wasn’t, there is no “happy middle” or place in between, and "what if" is irrelevant. Snopes.com decisively proved that the article WAS plagiarised. Yet was the Snopes article even mentioned by Dr. Barton? Absolutely not, even though that was the foundation of proof on which our argument rested. The crucial point to make here is that Dr. Barton did not let students investigate the matter for themselves by checking the Snopes article - THAT is why there was no big protest against plagiarism (other than us). How can a person protest against a problem when they don't even know it exists??
But for the sake of argument, let’s forget about my above points; was Dr. Barton’s article in any way an apology for the plagiarism? Not at all, in fact, Dr. Barton praised McClain for “his speech,” did not even address the academic standards, and still no one has taken responsibility for the fiasco. So even at best (which is extremely generous), this was not an adequate response.
You say:
Again, the issue has not been swept under the rug.
This seems to be an interesting position for you to take, ultimately you have conceded that an apology should have been made, but the apology wasn’t, rather, time has gone by and people were not made aware despite the fact that those responsible knew about it. That qualifies as being swept under the rug.
"Again, I am becoming more and more convinced that this IS, in fact, beating a dead horse. This is the point where I am going to tell the writers "Get over it.""
Calvin, with all due respect, this thread was meant to inform the visitors of the incident because most of the people who are have seen this would not have been informed any other way. We wanted it to be convenient because not everyone wants to look back over the entire blog history to find out what is being discussed. We already realized we would never get the apology we were looking for, and as far as we are concerned, this matter has been done but not finished for quite some time. You offered us what you called “olive branches,” and tried to dissuade us to compromise by not informing anyone else about the lies that were told, and you say we should "get over" the fact that these lies are allowed to be presented unchecked in assembly as if they were truth. One would think Calvin, that after admitting an apology was deserved, you would not so vehemently critisize those who are trying to dispel the dishonest distortions.
You might abandon a person because you think friendships are not worth fighting for, but some things are worth fighting for Calvin, and even dying for. The truth is one of those things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would like to congratulate the Analytic Student on his dedication to shedding light on the truth. I would really like to see more college students inspired by the divine works of our god above and I support his truthfulness and dedication to the true nature of Jesus Christ. I too am a college student who is in the same situation. Keep up the good work Analytical Student. Thanks for being a beacon of light standing out in a college system full of spiritual darkness. God Bless You !
Genesis 1:1-5
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Psalm 18:28
28For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness
Isaiah 50:10
10Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God.
Jeremiah 13:16
6Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.
Ezekiel 32:8
8All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.
Daniel 5:14
14I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.
Daniel 5:11
There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;
Matthew 3:16
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him
1 Corinthians 4:5
5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
2 Corinthians 4:4
4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2 Corinthians 4:6
6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:5
5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Revelation 11:19
19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
2 Samuel 22:29
29For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness.
Job 12:22
He discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth out to light the shadow of death.
God Bless,
Mark Shamashra
Post a Comment
<< Home