The Recorder vs. Academic Integrity

Central Connecticut State University's student newspaper, The Recorder, was recently under scrutiny over a slight case of plagiarism in an opinion article. While the paper's Editorial Editor, Carol Davis, addressed the issue adequately in an April 14 editorial, there are still some issues I'd like to address as Editor in Chief.

The author of the article, which appeared in the Feb. 4 issue of our paper, allegedly misattributed a source idea from a website used in research. While the author cited one source used, he mistook an idea from a second source as being said by the first. A CCSU student then brought the piece to the attention of a boss who pointed out the errors, as well as expressed his displeasure over the author's side of the issue.

Professor Vivian Martin of the CCSU Journalism Department said the mistake was common among students, particularly those in their first year of college. In a meeting with Professor Martin, the author, Managing Editor Ed Harris, Sue Sweeny of the Student Activities Leadership Department, and myself, we resolved to educate the author and future new writers in citation techniques as well as what typically constitutes plagiarism.

CCSU Political Science professor Toni Moran requested that an academic misconduct report be filed and sent to campus judicial. She believed that while most clubs wouldn’t be held to the same standard, The Recorder is in the public sphere and thus requires some kind of judicial-decided consequence.

First and foremost, The Recorder is a club, separate from the institution. Academic policies do not apply because of this. We adhere to our own laws and deal with problems internally in a manner that we see fit. Submitting the author's case of slight plagiarism, which was attributed to ignorance, to campus judicial based off academic misconduct is illogical since no course work was involved and a no grade given.

While Professor Moran was generally pleased with Carol Davis's editorial, I believe the issue should be put to rest. The author has dealt with Professor Martin for educational purposes. That's what The Recorder is: a learning experience. How are students, particularly freshman, supposed to learn if they are knocked down by the first blow?

Marriage vs. Civil Union

President Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex. However, he left open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

“The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said as reported by cnn.com. A full transcript of Bush’s statements can be found here.

Ron Paul is a congressman representing the 14th district in Texas. He calls marriage “a religious matter, not a government matter.” Law should mirror moral standards, but morality comes from religion, philosophy, societal standards, families, and responsible individuals, according to Paul. “It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions,” he wrote in an article called Gay Marriage Quicksand, which appeared in The New American.

While some may view it as sad, others view it as necessary. And why shouldn’t they? Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against gay people. I am in no way against gays living together in some form of unifying bond. But to call something that is sexually artificial to begin with “marriage” defies more than just the bond between a man and a woman; it defies the basis of our culture.

Marriage is a religious term for sanctifying and symbolizing the heterosexual union between a man and a woman. To cast aside the religious references is to disrespect the right to freedom of religion. Allowing a gay couple’s union to be called “marriage” infringes on religious freedom.

While we’re disposing of the country’s foundational moral standards, we might as well scrap the rest of the Constitution as well.