A matter of ethics

BC undergraduates advanced to the finals at the 25th annual Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl

"“The format of the Ethics Bowl is unique from other debate-style competitions in that teams are scored based on how well they consider the merit of all sides of an argument,” said team member Angela McCarthy ’21, president of the student-organized Bioethics Society of Boston College. “The spirit of the Ethics Bowl encourages respectful deliberation over some of the most controversial issues of our time. Instead of encouraging an ‘us versus them mentality,’ it promotes productive conversations about controversial issues.”

“I was so proud to see their preparation pay off in their performance at nationals,” said BC team coach Katie Rapier, an assistant professor of philosophy. “The students responded to their opponents and the judges with both professionalism and finesse, and a robust understanding of the material through clear explanations and compelling arguments. I was thrilled to see such a rich display of learning and skill from our students.”

In advance of competition, each team receives a set of APPE-written cases that explore a variety of topics within practical and professional ethics that could range from cheating and plagiarism, dating and friendships, to free speech, gun control or professional principles in medicine, engineering, or law.

Teams prepare an analysis of each case, and during a match, a case is randomly selected from the set, and teams have three minutes to huddle before giving a 10-minute presentation. A moderator poses questions designed to delve deeper into the case’s multiple ethical dimensions.

A panel of judges then probes the teams for further justifications and evaluates their answers. Rating criteria are based on intelligibility, focus on ethically relevant considerations, avoidance of ethical irrelevance, and deliberative thoughtfulness. Teams cannot bring notes or confer with coaches...

Senior philosophy major Caroline Gillette focused on two cases that dealt with the ethics of moderating content on social media, both offensive speech and misinformation."

Friday, March 1, 2019

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It; Rolling Stone, February 13, 2019

Jake Malooley, Rolling Stone;

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It

When journalist Jake Malooley talked to the former New York Times executive editor, she admitted only to minor mistakes — but her responses were revealing

[Kip Currier: In yesterday's Information Ethics class session, looking at Plagiarism, Attribution, and Research Integrity and Misconduct, we explored this illuminating 2/13/19 interview of Jill Abramson--veteran journalist and the former first-ever female Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2011 until her firing in 2014--by Rolling Stone reporter Jake Malooley.

I also played the first ten minutes of a 2/20/19 radio interview of Abramson by WNYC's Brian Lehrer, in which Abramson fields questions from Lehrer about her ongoing plagiarism controversy and research/writing process.

The Abramson plagiarism controversy is a rich ripped-from-the-headlines case study, emphasizing the importance and implications of plagiarism and research integrity and misconduct. Imagine being in Abramson's Harvard University class this term, where the 1976 Harvard FAS alumna is teaching an Introduction to Journalism course...

Speaking of Harvard, The Harvard Crimson has an interesting 2/15/19 article on the continuing Abramson controversy, as well as prior instances of alleged plagiarism by a trio of prestigious Harvard professors in the early 2000's, who, following investigations, "faced no public disciplinary action": Current Policy, Past Investigations Offer Window Into Harvard’s Next Steps In Abramson Plagiarism Case]

"In the days that followed, Abramson gave interviews to Vox and CNN. She unconvincingly sidestepped definitions of plagiarism upheld by the Times and Harvard, contending she is guilty of little more than sloppiness. She also claimed Vice is “waging an oppo campaign” against her book. Amid all the equivocation and attempts to duck the plagiarist label, Abramson still had not sufficiently explained how my writing and that of several other journalists ended up running nearly word-for-word in her book. I didn’t feel personally aggrieved, as some colleagues believed I rightfully should. But I did think I was owed straight answers. So late last week, I requested an interview with Abramson through Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Merchants of Truth.

On Monday afternoon, Abramson phoned me from Harvard’s campus, where she would be teaching an introduction to journalism seminar. According to the syllabus for Abramson’s Spring 2019 workshop “Journalism in the Age of Trump,” a copy of which a student, Hannah Gais, tweeted, Merchants of Truth is assigned as required reading...

This interview has been condensed for length.

Correction: This article previously stated that Abramson was on her way to her Spring 2019 workshop, “Journalism in the Age of Trump.” It has been corrected to clarify that she was on her way to an introduction to journalism class."