First extracts from an AP report yesterday, then my comments below the star line along with a few questions for you.
The AP reported - - -
A Columbia University professor who drew widespread attention when a noose was discovered hanging from her office door has been fired over allegations of plagiarism.
Administrators at Columbia's Teachers College said in a letter to faculty Monday that Madonna G. Constantine also obstructed the school's investigation into the allegations and publicly made accusations of plagiarism against those whose work she had plagiarized.
Bill Anderson, a spokesman for Teachers College, said Constantine had been terminated but that she could challenge the dismissal.
Her attorney, Paul Giacomo, said she has until July 15 to decide. He called the firing "purely retaliatory." ...
She was sanctioned in February for plagiarism after the university determined she had used the work of others without attribution in papers published in academic journals over the past five years.
She was allowed to remain on staff and appeal the ruling, with her lawyer saying at the time that she was targeted because she is black.
The plagiarism investigation began in 2006, well before the noose — a symbol of lynchings in the Deep South — was discovered on her door Oct. 9.
The entire AP story's here.
In February I posted Is Columbia's "noose" prof a plagiarist?
Here's part of what I said:
Race – smace. Is Constantine a plagiarist? That’s the first question I’m asking.As far as I know, Constantine has never publicly presented evidence she didn't plagiarize. That's very telling.
And if she is, then race only enters into it because Constantine doesn’t want to seriously address Columbia’s finding she has plagiarized.
I doubt Columbia made its finding without having before it overwhelming evidence she plagiarized.
In any case, I plan to follow this story, in part to learn whether Columbia has released the material that convinced it Constantine did plagiarize.
For her part, Constantine, if she’s really convinced she didn’t plagiarize, should be presenting her evidence she didn’t, instead of crying “race.”
It can be hard to prove plagiarism, but it's usually very easy to refute plagiarism charges provided you haven't plagiarized.
The skunk at Constantine's picnic is she's been accused of plagiarizing from multiple sources oven many years; and she's been unable to refute the charges to the satisfaction of a university that's notoriusly PC. Who doubts Columbia bent over backwards to give her every benefit of the doubt; and perhaps even overlook a few things that shouldn't be overlooked.
We can be confident this isn't a case where "To be or not to be" showed up in one of Constantine's papers and now she's having to defend herself from charges she filched from The Bard of Avon.
That said, do any of you know of links to the documents and/or portions thereof Columbia has cited as plagiarized?
Do any of you know of links to any refutation(s)Constantine has made based on content analysis and other recognized means of disproving plagiarism charges.
I think all serious scholars will be interested in the answers to those two questions.
As for Constantine's cries of "race," what do they amount to in the absence of a chance for us to examine the documents in question?
Hat tips to many of you who've called the latest in the Constantine case to my attention.