How Often Does "Degree Revocation" Occur?

Well, I certainly don't want to burden you with having to read.

And I can see how one might feel that any discussion on a discussion forum might simply be an exercise in wasting time. And I absolutely respect your choosing this time to exit the conversation to ostensibly take some sort of "high road" that does not involve critically approaching a contentious issue.

You seem incredibly frustrated. May I ask what outcome you were expecting here? Were we not having a discussion? Were we debating? Was there supposed to be a winner?

You can win if it matters that much to you.

 

To all:

 

C'mon, guys, pick up your toys and come on back and play. :laugh:

 

Do you have the 1955 version? I'll sit here and enjoy my Diet Dr. Pepper while you look.

 

Do I have it? No. But I've located it. It, along with all recorded codes of student conduct at Boston University, is housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center. The stacks may be closed but I'm sure the university archivist would be willing to assist of you ask nicely. I also wasn't able to find a code specific to 1991, the closest date was 1983, but I suppose it's completely reasonable to assume that they don't issue a new code every year and the 1983 code was in force in 1991.

I'm not sure what you want the 1955 code for. He wasn't accused of misconduct in 1955. And I'm unaware of a university not operating under its current structure and code but instead using a former code. I imagine that could create more issues since older codes might reference academic officers who may not even exist anymore or may have odd requirements embedded in them (maybe the provost has to wear full regalia when revoking a degree?).

But I eagerly await a report of your findings.

Just so that I can keep ahead of your next contrarian rant, should I also request a copy of MLK's long form birth certificate?

 

That's the year he plagiarized his dissertation.

I don't care enough to put that kind of effort into it. With 2 teenagers and a puppy on the way, I have more productive things to do with my time than take the T to BU and look through dusty shelves.

You're accusing someone else of ranting? For irony, that surely has to take the cake.

 

Repeated since ignored: "He wasn't accused of misconduct in 1955. And I'm unaware of a university not operating under its current structure and code but instead using a former code. I imagine that could create more issues since older codes might reference academic officers who may not even exist anymore or may have odd requirements embedded in them (maybe the provost has to wear full regalia when revoking a degree?)."

Yeah, Bruce. I'm a ranting maniac what with saying that universities shouldn't revoke the degree of a dead person. I mean, seriously, I'm about *this* close to killing a Czar and his family, right?

The problem is that you can't have it both ways. You argue that MLK is receiving special treatment by not having his degree posthumously revoked despite the fact that posthumously revoking a degree would require special treatment.

You started this entire conversation by saying that MLK's degree "should have" been revoked despite not offering a single shred of evidence that BU ever possessed any provision within its student code of conduct to allow for the revocation of a degree without affording the student some opportunity to be heard (and thus, making it impossible to revoke the degree of a dead person). But, considering you think you know better than the numerous universities who awarded Maya Angelou honorary doctorates I can't say that I find it surprising that you seem to be able to pass such swift judgment of Boston University (you know, for treating MLK like every other student instead of singling him out for an unprecedented measure of discipline that would violate the school's own policies).

 

It's nicer when moderators moderate instead of instigate.

 

Sometime long before I became one of the mods, Bruce stated that mods have every right to participate in debates as "just one of the guys (or gals)." I hope that you don't think I was instigating.

 

That is unfortunate.

 

I value the contributions that all of the moderators here make to discussions. I do not like fora where I find the moderators are robotic creatures who only pop up to admonish (or, more often than not, reserve their true thoughts for their secret non-mod account).

But there's also a difference between being part of the discussion and instigating.

I don't think you did any instigating at all in the course of this discussion.

 

I thought I'd jump in here and comment on this comment . . . the Moderators here at DegreeInfo do not have non-Mod accounts. I know that Neuhaus wasn't making that claim but since it came up I thought I'd make the point.

 

Yes. This.

 

Why shouldn't Mods be able to contribute to the discussion(s)?

 

Who said that they shouldn't? I have not seen anyone here say that mods shouldn't be able to contribute to the discussion.

Re: Non-mod accounts

As I see Kizmet understood my intention (that is, not saying mods on THIS forum have non-mod accounts) I am glad my meaning was not misconstrued. However, as I re-read what I wrote I see how others might have misunderstood my intention. I should have either more carefully worded that comment or omitted the reference to what mods on other fora may, or may not, do.

I participate on another forum where this one mod very clearly has a non-mod account. If you click refresh you can see him sign off of his mod account and other his non-mod account on the front page (where it shows who is online) and then the tirade begins.

 

Red herring. No one said that.

I contend that some moderators on this board have used the position to bully posters.

I'm supportive of moderator participation. But I would expect them to model participatory behavior, not stretch it to unfortunate extremes. That is simply not the case here sometimes.

 

So, if someone committed a murder in Texas in 1974, and managed to escape capture until today, they should face the death penalty in your eyes? After all, that's the current law in Texas, never mind that there was no death penalty in the United States from 1972-1976.

It's all about what's current, right?

Laying on the hyperbole a bit thick, wouldn't you say? I never once said you're a ranting maniac, but I think that if I asked you for a glass of water, I'd get an agonizingly detailed explanation of the city's water supply and purification systems.

Not so. See my example of Texas above; IMO, a plagiarist shouldn't get a pass because they managed to avoid detection for a certain number of years.

But, since you bring it up, I'd wager a hefty sum that if Condoleeza Rice (Ph.D. University of Denver) were, God forbid, killed in a car crash tonight, and it was later learned that she plagiarized her dissertation, the calls to revoke her degree would be shouted from the highest mountain tops.

If you're going to quote me, at least do it accurately. I said probably should have been revoked. And in my opinion, it probably should have been.

Sorry that I'm not one of those fawning robots who thinks that non-rhyming poetry is cool and hip because I'm told that it's cool and hip. If you like non-rhyming poetry (I think that's called "talking"), then good luck to you.

As for BU, do you know how many degrees they've revoked from non-famous people? I don't, because that's not something that makes the news, so it's a bit disingenuous for you to claim that MLK would be singled out if his degree were revoked.

 

I literally laughed out loud when I read that, thanks for the laugh.

If you think I'm a bully, Rich, you have a much different definition of the word than I do. Some people don't like having their positions and opinions challenged; I get that, but we're all adults here. I've never threatened anyone (not that I can do much beyond banning them, which I've never done, except for spammers), and I even try to avoid using profanity here (it may have slipped out on occasion), given the academic nature of the board.