Dear Argus,
After reading your article, sensationally entitled “Required Resignation,” I thought to myself, why is this story front-page material? After recovering from my initial shock, I looked at the facts. A student failed one class and cheated in another. According to a reasonable university policy, the student was then suspended. Now, for most students the issue would end there; if you fail a class, then cheat, that is usually adequate grounds for suspension from school, and you are not front-page material in the Argus.
But apparently there were extenuating circumstances in Vasquez’s case. That is understandable, and these circumstances were heard by among others four faculty members and two students who each had a vote. Dean Cruz-Saco was asked about this process. In the article she said, “the Committee makes its final decision based on the student’s appeal, a conversation that the student has with members of the Committee in which there is consideration of the circumstances leading to the academic performance…”
A board of peers and professors voted on the matter. Those on the Committee heard the extenuating circumstances and felt that University policy remained appropriate. This is not meant as an indictment of Vasquez, just as a reminder of impartiality. What makes Vasquez special? Many students are on financial aid, many with extenuating circumstances. Perhaps this is trivial, but to single out Vasquez as some sort of martyr/hero seems like incredibly bad journalism, or at least as action motivated by bias. It is also unfair to every student who encounters adversity but doesn’t make it on the front page of the Argus.
– Chris “Evan Carp” W
Leave a Reply