Allegations that Hsinchu Mayor Lin Chih-chien (林智堅) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) plagiarized his 2008 master’s thesis were a hot topic in the news this week.
If Lin had not been nominated to run for Taoyuan mayor, such a trivial report would not have been newsworthy.
However, elections commonly raise accusations of plagiarism linked to candidates, whether they graduated from top universities, private universities or universities of technology.
As an educator, I lament the stigmatization of higher education in Taiwan.
Kaohsiung City Councilor Jane Lee (李眉蓁), who was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate in the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election, was also accused of plagiarism. The difference between Lee and Lin is that Lee’s thesis adviser refrained from commenting on the matter after an author who Lee allegedly copied from filed a lawsuit against her.
In contrast, Lin’s advisers at National Taiwan University and Chung Hua University have presented evidence that Lin did not do what he has been accused of.
Because of Lee’s case, the Ministry of Education sent letters urging universities and colleges to raise the bar regarding examination committees and review processes for in-service graduate programs.
At my university, for example, before students apply for a thesis defense exam, their work goes through a verification system to scan for plagiarism. After verification, students sign a statement declaring that their work does not contravene academic research ethics, which is submitted with the verification result and their advisers’ signature.
Professors on the examination committee have requirements to meet. First, their field of study must relate to the student’s area of specialization. Second, they must be current or former professors, associate professors or assistant professors. Other rigorous requirements include a submission of department affairs’ meeting minutes detailing their eligibility criteria as an examiner.
Those who pull strings with advisers or unendorsed faculty members from outside the university are not fit to be on a panel.
In Lee’s plagiarism scandal, the adviser bore the most responsibility. Advisers play a significant role in determining whether a student has met the requirements for graduation and can have a degree conferred.
From the choosing of a thesis topic, appointments and scheduling, and review and revision of a draft thesis, to a thesis defense invitation, Lee’s adviser would have supervised her at every step of the process.
However, Lee’s outrageous misconduct was appalling — almost all of her thesis was copied. An adviser who claimed ignorance of her misdeeds would be derelict in duty.
If it was acquiescence, then the adviser should be considered incompetent and ousted from academia.
Politicians should stop the mudslinging. Do not let one rotten apple spoil the whole barrel. Leave higher education out of political conflicts.
Huang Rongwen is a professor at National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Rita Wang
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS