I am writing this letter in response to certain comments made in the article published Sept. 29 entitled New plagiarism cases suspected. To begin, I must state that the majority of the local news coverage of the alleged plagiarism incidents has been incredibly one-sided and, in some instances, a gross exaggeration of the actual facts. Often times, the local newspapers have published outright mischaracterizations of the facts. For instance, in the article, The Post states that the first group
led by then mechanical engineering Chair Jay Gunasekera found one instance of plagiarism G? That is completely false. The first group to examine plagiarism was in fact led by Dr. Gary Graham, who was appointed by Gunasekera. I cannot understand why newspapers continue to print facts that are completely unsubstantiated and, in this instance, just plain wrong. As an individual who has called Athens her home for almost 25 years and as an alumna of Ohio University, it is truly disappointing to continue to read this slanted news coverage and be subjected to this total disregard of the actual truth.
In particular, I want to respond to the statement that with the exceptions of Gunasekera and Mehta the other professors continue to advise graduate students
a decision Irwin said he stands behind because those professors weren't contributing to a culture of plagiarism. In effect, Dean Irwin is stating that Gunasekera and Mehta were contributing to a culture of plagiarism ' a statement that echoes the sentiments of the Hugh-Bloemer Committee report released in May. Despite the fact that the report itself stated that it was a recommendation
Irwin continues to publicize these statements as factually accurate descriptions.
It is difficult to understand Irwin's logic in his statements because they are never substantiated with any actual conclusory evidence that Gunasekera did, in fact, contribute, aid and/or abet these alleged cases of plagiarism. Indeed, in this same article, The Post states that the committee is (still) examining all 107 theses approved by Jay Gunasekera and Bhavin Mehta
and Irwin himself states that I don't believe there's been enough effort put into that to be able to say with 100 percent certainty that this hasn't been the case
when reporting a question about the extent of plagiarism. These sentiments have been similarly reflected by Ohio University in past articles. As of Sept. 13, both Irwin and Interim Associated Dean Angie Bukley confirmed that OU was still investigating all of the alleged theses.
If, as OU has reminded us time and time again, the investigation is still ongoing, why does Irwin continue to conclude and publicize that both Gunasekera and Mehta have been contributing to a culture of plagiarism as distinguished from any other faculty in the entire university, particularly in light of the 15 chemical engineering theses uncovered in that very same article?
But Irwin does not stop there in his conclusory assertions and states that some honest people have a problem
and those honest people are trying to fix the problem. Is Irwin again implying that Gunasekera is dishonest? Is he being accused of stealing from the university? Is he being accused of lying to the university? Most importantly, is he being accused of plagiarism in his own work? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. Gunasekera has not been accused, nor has he ever plagiarized in his own work.
As the spokesperson for the College of Engineering, Irwin is representing to the public that he believes Gunasekera did, in fact, directly aid and abet these alleged instances of plagiarism and that he is a dishonest person. These characterizations come on the heels of constant communications from the university that it is still examining these allegations. Isn't it fair to assume that those officials have already concluded that Gunasekera is guilty of these acts?
Such statements are akin to asking the prosecution to present its case on convicting an alleged criminal, rendering a verdict of guilty and then asking the defense to rise and present its case despite the guilty verdict. Apart from the obvious impulse that this is unfair and wrong, these types of statements fail to provide Gunasekera any opportunity for a fair defense.
Obviously, my interest in this matter goes beyond my concern for the integrity of the university and its faculty. As a member of this community who has known most of you since the time I was three years old, I want to sincerely thank those families and individuals who have expressed their support, kindness and warmth to my family during this difficult time. It is truly heartening to know that there are those who believe in our family and know the truth.Eva Gunasekera is a 2001 alumna of Ohio University who writes from Washington D.C.
17
Archives
