But everything's tribal nowadays. Republicans are suddenly very interested in academic integrity, which is plainly funny. Since when?
But we're also doing our own in this situation where even the most ardent defenders don't have a very good explanation for their defenses. It's literally, "A university president should not have to abide by the same academic standards as their students, because . . . reasons." Like that's the defense. Just, you know, reasons. I've not seen a single good one, and John McWhorter nailed the whole thing down in his NYT op-ed, IMO.
But Republicans are against something, so we have to be for it.
Can we not be, though? Can we just judge whether or not someone is wrong without going through the entire politico-journalist complex and declaring sides and making ourselves look compromised because we have to twist and bend and manipulate logic and reason to defend something that clearly one shouldn't be defending?
It shouldn't be this hard.
And if the argument truly is, "Nothing that bad happened here," ok. Then the next move should be to remove those standards for the students, yes? So, ok, get on that one. And maybe make restitution of some kind to students who suffered consequences under the standards that people are arguing clearly shouldn't be in place.
Unless we want to argue there should be double standards - which some people clearly, clearly are. But that circles around to the twisting and bending portion of the program I just mentioned.
= new reply since forum marked as read