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
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS