Last month, after I published “Advertising Plagiarism in the UO SOJC,” a faculty member filed a complaint describing the article as “online harassment.” After meeting with Sandy Weintraub, Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards, I was not only assured that this complaint was “completely unfounded,” but led to believe that the complaint was filed by Professor Deborah Morrison – “the faculty mentioned in the article,” as Mr. Weintraub put it.

Turns out, the complaint filed against me – for publishing an article disputing the ethics of a peer’s act of plagiarism – was filed by none other than the Interim Dean of the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication (UO SOJC), Julianne Newton.

In Julianne Newton’s book, The Burden of Visual Truth (yes, you read that right – could we ask for more irony when discussing design theft?) she dedicates the work “To those who risk all so the rest of us can see – and, therefore, know.”

At the risk of Dean Newton filing another complaint against me, I’d like to help the rest of us see – and, therefore, know – the paradox unfolding on our campus. This paradox being, of course, that the acting dean of the Pacific Northwest’s only accredited school of Journalism, a woman awarded and respected in the world of transparency and ethics, particularly concerning visual mediums, reprimanded a Journalism student for exposing visual plagiarism in our community – and as if that wasn’t enough, proceeded to try to cover it up, and failed to take responsibility for filing the complaint.

According to the UO Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics, “It is a truism that a democracy, so far as its enlightened action is concerned, can be no stronger than its educational system” (emphasis added).

How strong can our education be when the leader of our school sets such a poor example in taking responsibility for one’s actions?

The University of Oregon’s Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech policy on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) site, reinforces the support for free expression, “The University encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate…” and “as a public institution… will sustain a higher and more open standard for freedom of inquiry and free speech than may be expected or preferred in private settings.”

Does this sound like a school where your Journalism dean will report you for writing about plagiarism?

Although it’s hard to believe, especially considering the situation at hand, FIRE UO policy insists that “expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not solely for those who present and defend some view but for those who would hear, disagree, and pass judgment on those views. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, and in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive or ‘just plain wrong’ cannot be grounds for its suppression” (emphasis added).

How beautiful is that? America, Baby!

It’s no wonder the Director of Student Conduct told me the complaint filed by our Interim Dean — the complaint against my article which is, keep in mind, a manifestation of my First Amendment rights — was “completely unfounded.”

Ironically, in the eyes of those who truly value freedom of expression, the complaint on my record may be seen as a badge of honor, representing my dedication to journalism and the pursuit of open discourse. It may even be more valuable than a degree from a school that, apparently, condones cheating by reprimanding those who write about it.

I suggest you ask yourself how much your degree will be worth, in light of recent events? Will it be worth the amount you pay each term toward Dean Newton’s two hundred thousand dollar plus salary? When you are handed your diploma, remember the Dean’s words of dedication in her book — “To those who risk all so the rest of us can see – and, therefore, know.” Remember that she filed a complaint against a student who wished to do exactly that.

I have reached out to professors within the SOJC, and have been told they’d rather be left out of this article. I have done my due diligence — and yet, the professors who teach us the value of due diligence when writing an article, have been unwilling to comment.

This is the consequence of a community that doesn’t hold true to its stated values.

This is the consequence of favoritism, intimidation, and lack of accountability.

As our faculty remains silent on the matter, I encourage you, my peers, to become a larger part of the discussion. I encourage you to ask your professors, “If I cheated so blatantly, would I be punished? Or would I get away with it? Would Dean Newton go to bat for my reputation if I were caught cheating?”

If you are a UO student outside of the SOJC, does this sound like the way your department handles academic dishonesty?

The UO SOJC has taught us a great deal about crisis communication: specifically, how not to do it. As the faculty continues to ignore our ongoing discussion about ethics and transparency, we are given a real life example of an institution circling the wagons around a rising star, a department head, and their reputations — at the expense of the school’s, and ours.

I wonder how many unfounded complaints must be filed against a student’s right to “disagree, and pass judgment,” and how many aspiring careers advocating transparency will be skewed by a peer’s choice to cheat — much less by their school’s decision to suppress freedom of speech regarding that very matter — before our Interim Dean, Julianne Newton, begins to feel the burden of visual truth.

***********