Newspapers / Gardner-Webb University Student Newspaper / Oct. 11, 2002, edition 1 / Page 11
Part of Gardner-Webb University Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
TTiePll^ Friday, October 11. 2002 Editorial Page 11 GWU crisis an opportunity to leam To The Editor: The statement released on Sept. 27 by Tommy Hardin claims that the controversy of the past two weeks has taken our focus off education. It also encourages us to learn from our mistakes. At Gardner-Webb University, we encourage our students to develop critical thinking skills. Students leam to ask probing questions and are encouraged to form their own opinions. The current crisis presents an educational opportunity. Our foundational values and principles are at stake, and recent events have challenged us to identify where we stand and to give reasons for our position. I encourage students and other interested parties to read the Hallman report to the trustees and the response by Dr. Phil Williams and decide for themselves which voice seems closer to the core values GWU claims to represent. I would like to limit my remarks to the statement made by Hardin following the meet ing of the board of trustees on Sept. 27. If we apply principles of critical thinking to Hardin’s statement, what might we uncover? What lessons can be learned? 1) “Dr. White did not direct any change in any student’s grade.” How can a student’s grade point average change unless a student’s grades are changed? Did not Dr. White’s memo result in the change of a cheat ing F to a non-cheating F? 2) “While the action took place nearly two years ago, it did not become public until a special meeting of the faculty was hastily called on Sept. 10, after a story appeared in the Shelby newspaper.” How can an action become public at a special meeting of the faculty if it has already been reported in the newspa per? The impression left is that the faculty is to blame for the public furor. 3) “But forgiveness was not in the hearts of many of the faculty present, and the majori ty of those present voted no confidencc in the President.” Who can say what was in ‘7 have spoken with many faculty members and students about the Student Handbook statement. Everyone with whom I have spoken with has said that the statement seems clear and unambiguous to them. ^ the hearts of the faculty on Sept. 10? And why is lack of confidence in a person’s leader ship equated here with lack of a forgiving spirit? 4) Notice the language used in the statement. Whereas White’s actions are described as a “judg- m e n t error” and “a lapse of judg ment,” actions of the faculty are labeled as “seri ous ethi cal vio lations,” “unethi cal con duct that rips apart the Christian principals of fairness and integrity for which this University is known,” “breach es of ethical behavior,” “vin dictive behavior and mean spiritedness...a lapse of daily living and demonstration of the ethical behavior Christian edu cators and leaders should con tinually display on and off campus.” Is there balance or fairness in this picture? The statement claims that White “did not vio late school policy.” Nowhere in the statement is there any indica tion that the trustees addressed the issue of whether or not White’s action was ethical. 5) The statement notes “confusion over the existing code.” 1 have spoken with faculty involved in writing the code, with other faculty and with stu dents. Some faculty and stu dents were unaware of the pol icy, but in NO case did I find confusion over the policy. Neither did the President, in his statement to the faculty on Sept.. 10, indicate confusion over policy as a factor in his decision to order the change in the calculation of the grade. Let the reader judge for her/himself. Here is the state ment as it appeared in the Student Handbook at the time of the incident:“Students are allowed to retake courses that they fail due to academic dis honesty; however, the course hours attempted will continue to be calculated in figuring the student’s grade point average.” 6) “Dr. White...did not vio late school policy.” If there was no “confusion over the existing code” (see point #5), White’s action was a vio lation of school policy. The pro cedure for calcu lation of a failing F is contained in the Student Handbook (see point #5 above). I have spoken with many faculty members and stu dents about the Student Handbook statement. Everyone with whom I have spoken has said that the state ment seems clear and unam biguous to them. Thus, despite the claim by Hardin and the trustees that White did not vio late school policy, the percep tion of many is that he did. Hardin’s statement did not address another area where many believe White’s action violated University policy. Gil Blackburn has stated that one reason he denied the various appeals that were presented to him concerning Carlos Webb’s cheating F was that he did not consider the appeals to be legit imate. They did not follow the proper procedures outlined for the appeals process. The University Catalog states that “the student must make all appeals in writing on his/her own behalf ...Appeals should not be made on behalf of the student by another party (facul ty or official of the institution). Appeals proffered by anyone other than the student whose program is in question will be dismissed.” Since Webb never submitted a written appeal of the Academic Judicial Board’s decision, and since the appeal brought to White was from University athletic stafT, how can the trustees claim that White’s actions are not a viola tion of school policy? Although Ed Hallman was informed of this apparent poli cy violation and states on p. 7 of his report under A Findings of Fact that the student did not contest “his professor’s allega tion of cheating,” I could find no explanation in the “Conclusions” section for why one should not conclude White violated school policy at this point. 7) “Dr. White’s motivation was to help a student whom he believed had received erro neous advice from a faculty member concerning course selection following a cheating incident.” Was the advice really erro neous? The advice was given on the basis of information pro vided by the student. The GWU Catalog states that “the student bears the final responsi bility for the selection of a pro gram of study and adherence to all published regulations and require ments of the University, including the preced- i n g req u i re- ments for grad ua- tion” (p. 68 of 2000-2001 edition). The Student Handbook (2000-2001 edition) states on p. 10: “Your advisor and others can assist you, but you will suffer the negative consequences if correct poli cies and procedures are not fol lowed.” 8) “Dr. White determined that the average should be cal culated as if the F was not for academic dishonesty.” On what basis was the determination made? Do other students who have cheating Fs on their transcripts now have the right to come back to the University and have them changed to non-cheating Fs? 9) The statement by Mr. Hardin claims that “University policy...requires seven days advance notice” for special fac ulty meetings. The actual word ing of the Faculty Constitution ‘75 the problem with the President's action that there was ambiguity?” is as follows: “Normally, seven days written notice shall be given.” 10) “Our school has been embarrassed and unjustly criti cized in the news media.” Yes, we have been embar rassed. But where has criticism been unjust? Have the basic facts in the matter been inaccu rately reported? 11) “Our students, alumni, faculty and friends have been confused and angered because of the way the events unfold ed.” Did trustees consider the possibility that the primary rea son students, alumni, faculty and friends have been confused and angered may not have been because of the way events unfolded but rather because of the event which triggered everything else, i.e.. White’s order to have a student’s tran script changed? 12) “Dr. White acted in accordance with his authority.” If unilateral action to change a student’s transcript and GPA is not outside the authority of a university presi dent, is there ANY action which could be construed as being outside his authority? If there are constraints on the authority of the President of GWU, what are they? Does GWU operate on the basis of a shared leadership model, or an imperial leadership model? 13) In relation to the pro posal for a “special task force” commissioned to “perform a complete review of our codes and processes involving behav ioral issues,” the statement declares that “there should not be any ambiguity in the lan guage or tolerance for unethical behavior.” Is the problem with the President’s action that there was ambiguity? Or is it that policy and guidelines in place were ignored? The last part of the quoted sentence is particu larly ironic; does the action taken by the board indicate its willingness to tolerate unethi cal behavior? Dr. Kent Blevins Associate Professor Department of Religious Studies and Philosophy Gardner-Webb University
Gardner-Webb University Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 11, 2002, edition 1
11
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75