The Daily Egyptian is taking some heat for reporting on accusations of plagiarism leveled at SIU President Glenn Poshard. The DE’s reporting seems pretty solid to me so far. Some of the writing has raised more questions than it has answered, as I pointed out in an earlier post. But I am not among those who think the DE should not be reporting this.
Poshard and his supporters have so far offered a shockingly weak defense, and have done so under the pretense of addressing this problem in a forthright and cooperative manner. Poshard has pointed out that at the time he wrote the dissertation he had a family, was working two jobs and was running for office. It was the busiest time of his life. This isn’t in dispute, but it’s irrelevant. Poshard himself said he intended to meet the highest academic standards. Being busy with family, work and politics wouldn’t get any student or faculty member off the hook who had submitted work with the same problems as Poshard’s dissertation.
Poshard was also careful to point out that his work was approved by his dissertation committee. This defense would be useless to anyone actually bound by SIU’s policy on academic dishonesty. Does any committee have the power to exempt faculty or students from compliance with the policy governing plagiarism? The committee may have erred in approving the dissertation, but their acceptance does not absolve Poshard of his responsibilities.
Commenters on the DE Web site are expressing rage that this story was reported, saying it amounts to dragging the University’s name through the mud and devaluing their degrees. Others insist that Poshard is a good man and therefore could not possibly have done what he is accused of doing. There is a great deal of anger directed at the group called Alumni and Faculty Against Corruption at SIU, who brought the matter to light. The group has been accused of cowardice, impure motives and of wanting to avenge Chris Dussold, who was dismissed from the University amid accusations of plagiarism. If Poshard is actually guilty of plagiarism, the group’s motives and the character of its members are irrelevant. And if they prove he did it, they don’t have to prove he’s the kind of guy who could have done it. Discussion of Poshard’s character is irrelevant blather.
Complaining about this being bad publicity for SIU is astoundingly obtuse. This is properly viewed as a process necessary to the University’s integrity. Investigate the matter. Apply clear and established standards. Take appropriate action. Poshard has asked to be held to the highest academic standards, and the University can profitably grant his request. If his work is found to be substandard and in violation of University policy, he should face the same consequences as any faculty member.
Is it likely to play out this way? I doubt it. The process seems already to be muddled and confused. There is no clear precedent. The matter is being smothered by committees. Past instances of plagiarism by administration officials have been ignored. Poshard’s strategy seems to be to defend his character and motives without offering any real defense of his dissertation, and that might work. If he’s determined not to resign, and he isn’t bothered by the bad publicity (or subjected to any real pressure by those who are), then the only opinions that matter are those of the University’s Board of Trustees. Poshard seems confident that they won’t turn on him. He may be right about that.
