« Brooks, Civic Religion and Truth in Politics (On Al-Farabi and the End of the Technocratic Rule) | Main | Is Blogging philosophy (or science), really? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ole Koksvik

FWIW, the evidence of which I'm aware strongly suggests that academic misconduct a la plagiarism is treated very widely according to proportionality, at least as far as students are concerned. It's a widespread source of consternation with colleagues I've discussed this with, that the response if often so very mild.

More importantly, it's compatible with that, that there is a threshold above which the appropriate response /is/ to bar the person from further participation in academica.

Michael Mirer

What seems to be missing from this discussion of proportionality (more evident in Leiter's piece than yours) is any discussion of what kind of harm is being caused and how that relates to the harasser's status as a teacher. Leiter's two strikes policy seems to suggest that the act of harassment is minimal enough that it is worth risking subjecting future students to it. In both the Pogge and McGinn cases their actions were directly related to their status as advisers/mentors, and we have reason to believe that at least one of them was a serial harasser. I don't know how either conducted themselves in a classroom, but based on their actions I do think we have reason to question their competence as pedagogues (which I would hold is different from their expertise in philosophy).


A point only slightly related to your main issue here. I'd really like to encourage people, when referring to the serial plagiarizer(*) scholar of medieval philosophy, to refer to him as Martin W.F. Stone, so as to help distinguish him, in google searches and the like, from the completely distinct and innocent of plagiarism legal philosopher, Martin Stone, who teaches at Cardozo law school. (I only found out about the MWFS cases when searching for the legal scholar's web page and got a lot of hits connecting the name with plagiarism. I don't know how Stone, the legal scholar, feels about the whole thing - I don't know him at all - but I have long felt sorry for him on this.) It seems like trying to minimize any confusion is a small thing to do.
(*) in relation to proportionality considerations, the fact that Martin W.F. Stone really did _a lot_ of plagiarism, in lots of venues, surely matters. He's not someone who we know of only one bad act. But that's beside the side point I wanted to make here.

David Duffy

I would look to the example of medical ethics:

"... whether the practitioner was in such breach of the written or unwritten rules of the profession as would reasonably incur the strong reprobation of professional brethren of good repute and competence."

A single sexual act with someone who is in a professional relationship with you leads to deregistration to work in the field for several years at a minimum, which undoubtedly affects earnings, and could perhaps be regarded as disproportionate in some lights (given modern mores).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad