not good for Duke. and the University should treat all the students, including the ones from the US, the same. just because the Asian students come from a background where honesty and taking responsibility for one's actions are encouraged doesn't mean they should be punished more severely than people who have lawyers advising them not to admit responsibility.
sad all around
I am not sure this belongs on this board, but going along with the idea that it does, let's just see what transpires. As we learned from the LAX case jumping to conclusions is a bad thing. Perhaps the Asian students were guilty of cheating in a different more pernicious manner? Perhaps, something else is in play here? Things could be even worse than the article implies. Let's just take a deep breath and see what happens during the student appeals process. This whole article might be moot in a couple of weeks.
I don't believe that for a second - each student is given an advisor for these kinds of situations. There's no proof that I should believe one party over the other (student vs board) but this is just asinine and playing the race card.
Last edited by hc5duke; 05-22-2007 at 11:21 PM.
I have no idea if you're referring to me hc5 or the other poster.
I dont see how the presence of an adviser influences things in any direction as far as my comments.
the quick tendency to defend anything duke (even students who have been caught cheating and whom the university is shunning) rather than be ethical is a sad tribal inheritance.
And how would this discussion not belong on this board? i'm not contemplating the meaning of lost - i'm responding to Duke in the news. jeez.
I haven't read the code of conduct and the process spelled out for academic dishonesty for Fuqua. But all such codes that I have read do not have a formal role for an attorney. Rather, they allow the student in question to have an advisor to help them through the process and inform them of their options. Accordingly, a student, even if he/she has no lawyer, is not without guidance.
You also state "the University should treat all the students, including the ones from the US, the same."
Assuming your point that the Asian students admitted their part... I suspect that any other students that admitted wrongdoing commeasurate in scope with the admitted acts of the asian students were similarly punished.
Would you have asian students who admit to acts be treated less harshly than US nationals who admit to the same acts... under the theory of "the Asians don't know better" and "cultural differences?"
That would be unfair.
However, all of this is speculation.. I, and I suspect the OP, have no idea who admitted what and what level of culpability was assigned to each individual's actions...
- Pacer, Egr. '98
The writer of this article could very easily have appointed painting Duke with a racist brush. There's no evidence that race played a role in Duke's decisions regarding punishment. The article says that "many" of the students confessed. I wonder if "many" = the 9 who were expelled. I also wonder if the charges against the 9 were different than the charges against any others who may have confessed. If someone confesses to Violation A which merits expulsion, you expel them unless you've negotiated otherwise. Meanwhile, if you suspect that someone else has committed Violation A but doesn't confess and you can only prove Lesser Violation B, you mete out the punishment that is reserved for Lesser Violation B.
It's also misleading to say that the cheating case "hits Asian students hardest." If anything, it appears that their (a) cultural norms or (b) lack of understanding of the implications of their confessions hit the Asian students hard. I don't think that Duke is responsible in either situation.
No soup for you!