Obviously, your interpretation and mine are different. However, I do want to ask these questions not about the interpretation, but the advertisement itself.
1. If I was a student who attended a forum and took down notes (not recordings) of the speakers, and later used them (whether it is a paper or an ad) without attributing no a name or event, would I not be turned in for plagiarism? How can a professor, none the less, get away with this?
2. Is it not appropriate when using someone's quotes (or in this case paraphrases of quotes) to ask if they are used in the right context and portray the intentions of the speaker? Was Lubiano given permission to use these quotes?
3. Where was the proof that there was a vote for DEPARTMENTS to endorse the advertisement? If I was a part of one of those departments and see that they had "endorsed" the ad without my input, I would be very angry.
4. How was the full page advertisement paid for? If the ad was paid for by departmental funds, is that not misappropriation? And if you say it is not, why is it not?
I have problems with the advertisement for these reasons. I think these allegations alone might be cause for sever reprimand, if not dismissal, of Lubiano.
As for some Duke professor's hatred for sports, why? I am not for putting in academics in front of athletics, but do you realize the impact and money athletics bring in to colleges? The athletic web site is a big recruiting tool for colleges. At many division III universities, the number involved in intramurals and athletics outnumber those who are not. Athletics are vital to college and universities, and in fact many of these professors at Duke might not be there if not for the success of the basketball team.
Like it or not, athletics is VITAL to the vast majority of universities.
Just look what it did for George Mason:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2006-05-17-george-mason-future_x.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment