Student Life Archives

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Differing opinions are what make democratic societies great. Yet once one crosses the not-so-fine line between opinion and one-sided, tendentious accusation, those of us with any moral fiber must protest.

Counting on many students to not be familiar with the intricacies of Middle East politics, Trent Taylor’s article on Friday tried to present embellished facts and obvious propaganda as truth in order to deceive the reader and reach defamatory conclusions about a man who is now unable to defend himself. Ariel Sharon is a soldier, and a great one at that. Calling him a “war criminal” is a gross bastardization of the expression and ultimately allows the term to be used against anybody in uniform. For example, in bestowing the title “war criminal,” the writer conveniently neglected to do the same with General Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill, although they ordered countless bombings of German cities during WWII. How easy it is to be selective in name-calling when it serves one’s political agenda.

Sharon’s actions in war (several wars in which a single Israeli defeat would have meant genocide, the total annihilation of millions of Jews) were no different than those of many other soldiers’ defending their country. Holding him, as well as Israel, to a different standard than one would hold America, China, France and Mozambique is unfair. As a military commander, Sharon may have killed for his country, just as thousands of other Israelis were compelled to do in order to protect their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters from an enemy whose goal was “to eliminate the state of Israel” (Yasser Arafat, 1996 – years after he signed the peace accords in Oslo). War is hell, and Israel never wanted any of it.

Now, Taylor mentioned Sabra and Shatila, a massacre that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions, just as ANY targeting of innocent civilians is against the rules of war. This massacre was at the hands of a Christian Maronite militia, not at the hands of Ariel Sharon. Furthermore, a United States court ruled in 1987 that a Time article linking Sharon to the massacre was false and defamatory. Taylor either did not know about this, a glaring omission for someone who took it upon himself to lecture us about the Middle East, or very suspiciously opted to hide this fact if he was aware of it, lest it undermine his own ramblings.

The last piece of obvious falsehood is Taylor’s assertion that Sharon’s construction of a security fence (like the one between America and Mexico, or India and Pakistan) cripples any hope of peace. I’m sure that’s the reason, and not Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s continued acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Mr. Taylor says that the fence has left Palestinians with 11 percent of Palestine. Unless he received this statistic from Al-Qaeda Daily, this is not true. The fence extends past the Green Line to include cities that are 100 percent Jewish, leaving 93 percent, not 11 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians. In any case, the fence is not considered a permanent boundary, but instead just a way to keep terrorists from blowing up Israeli schools, restaurants, and buses. It is a fact beyond dispute that putting up this fence has drastically reduced the number of civilian casualties, which, in another display of misleading writing, Taylor completely forgot to mention. In addition, it boggles the mind that he chose not to mention a single Palestinian atrocity from the last hundred years, acts of terror that have filled Israeli morgues with civilians; not one word, only an attack on the Jewish prime minister.

I’d like to say one thing in closing. Shame on you, Student Life. Shame on you for printing such a hateful fabrication. I would hope to never see something of the sort again, whether it is about Prime Minister Sharon, Mahatma Ghandi or FDR. This kind of article makes a mockery of objectivity, fairness and journalistic integrity, and is a blemish on Student Life’s reputation.

Ben is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences.

Regarding Laura Vilines’ article, “Washington University’s True Life: How other University students stack up,” I must say I was not the least bit surprised with her survey’s results. Not all hope is lost, though. I just wanted to let you know that there are some students out there who are financially independent.

I will admit that I was quite pampered in high school (relative to the area that I lived in). I never had a job during the school year (I worked during the summer) and I never had to pay for a car (because I never had one). While in high school and applying to schools, all my dad ever thought about was costs. My mom, an English teacher who insisted on correct grammar all the damn time, originally wanted me to attend Wash. U.

She knew what it meant to graduate from a prestigious university. But I was presented with a problem. My father told me straight up that if I wanted to go to Wash. U., I would have to pay for it. Another requirement for attending was not becoming a brainwashed hippie. The latter has not been a problem. But I had to research how I was going to afford this school that was so absoludicrously priced.

I finally found a certain scholarship program that would pay my full tuition and room/board. It even gave me a monthly stipend and a little help with buying books! I couldn’t ask for more. Well, I could ask for more, but I would be told to shut up. Though, with all the benefits, there are MANY requirements involved with this scholarship, all mandatory and time-consuming (including, but not limited to, a class every semester that Wash. U. doesn’t even give you credit for, but that’s a completely different topic. It also requires a post-graduation job commitment, but I will not get into details. If you cannot figure out what program I am talking about, well, think harder.

Since graduation from high school, I have remained financially independent from my parents and I will continue to be when I graduate from this university. But…people like Julie Loewenberg make me almost regret my decision to attend. Hopefully, students who are responsible can make bigger impressions on the younger, impressionable MTV crowd (who all are thinking about where they want to attend college) than this snobby excuse for a “fashion designer.” I have enough trouble explaining to people from my podunk area of Ohio (the only thing notable from my village is our racing course that makes it on ESPN about once a year) where St. Louis even is, and how I do NOT, in fact, attend a school in the state of Washington. I don’t need help from MTV making my school look like a bunch of primped, Paris Hilton-wannabe socialites. Considering the percentage of bleeding-heart liberals on campus who exhibit these qualities, I suggest a new slogan for the College Democrats: “We love to help the disadvantaged and the poor, regardless of our extreme and needless spending on products that are required to maintain our superior social status.”

If you were offended by that last statement, then you are exactly the type of person who needs to read it again and think about what it is saying. This letter will probably fall on deaf ears, but if you ever have a chance to represent yourself in the mainstream media (or to ANYONE), please think of who you are representing. Some of us wish to maintain school pride.

Bill is a junior in Arts & Sciences.

There’s just something so oddly fascinating about watching a 45-year-old electrician duke it out with a 20-year-old student, especially when they’re both sliding around the ice rink on skates. You almost wonder who wins a fight like that: the younger might feel guilty about beating up on a dad, the older about knocking over someone like his son. Yet it happens with decent regularity at the Brentwood Ice Arena, where the Washington University club ice hockey team plays their games every Thursday evening.

I’ve been going to the games since sophomore year, since my then and current roommate was on the team. At first it was out of simple sympathy and a pinch of novelty that I attended; I never really liked hockey that much, and considering the level of play that I might expect from a men’s league, I didn’t know how long I would stay. But somehow, two years later, I’m still there in the stands every week.

Why? Because, well, it’s fun, it’s unpredictable, and it’s free. The league that Wash. U. is in now is a “no-checking” advanced league, which basically means that you can hit, slash and bump anyone as much as you like, provided you don’t let the referees catch you. Often, though, the referees seem to be watching a different game altogether, which allows for a great bit of frustration from both benches. In a league where enforcement is expected but rarely, er, enforced, there are bound to be some attempts at retribution. It’s men with day jobs playing men looking for day jobs – there are a lot of axes to grind. Wash. U. students don’t want to be pushed around by people their parents’ or older siblings’ age, nor do the “elders” want to be beaten by a group of wealthy, elitist college kids.

This is not to say that games are solely about pseudo-fighting; pure violence isn’t very common. But I believe it to be the driving force behind why these club games are so fun to watch. The hockey isn’t the NHL, but it is good and Wash. U. has some very talented players, including their player/coach/captain Tom Paskvan, who was recruited by a Division I hockey club. The team also has some mediocre players. This combination is, in fact, how most of the teams in the league are built, which is what makes each game a good one. It’s good old-fashioned hockey – no one is playing for money, fame or a job. They’re playing because they like playing.

At most games, you would be hard-pressed to find enough spectators to fill one row in one section of a pro hockey rink. But the fans that do come are as participatory as any I’ve seen at a packed house. There are about a half-dozen of us who seem to be there week after week, yelling, cheering, jeering, pounding the glass and generally making asses of ourselves. Sometimes, like at last week’s game, we have about 20 fans, which is great because the rink is less likely to try to throw us out for being rowdy. And, of course, it makes watching the games a lot more fun. I even heard a Washington University fight song last week (five times – one for each goal), something I hadn’t ever heard in my four years here. Yes, we do have one.

This isn’t a plea to have people come to the games, nor is it a shameless plug for the hockey team – they’re still going to play no matter what. This a fan trying to outline a fun alternative to dorm/frat-party grab-assing. The games are short, about an hour, so if you have other plans you probably won’t miss them. Yes, you do have to drive to the rink – it’s about five minutes past the Galleria on Brentwood – but I’m telling you, it’s worth it.

If you’re interested, visit www.brentwoodmo.org/index.asp?SID=97 to see the schedule, standings and directions. The next game is this Thursday at 8:55 p.m. Where else can you bang on things, lose your voice, watch live hockey, pay nothing and be back in time to go out?

Jeff is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor.

Late Thursday night, during my occasional Student Life headline skim before bed, I noticed the bold accusation presented in Friday’s section that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. As a staunch advocate of Israel, I was jarred by the headline, but as I read on, what truly surprised me was Taylor’s intention of starting yet another battle of rhetoric over who has wronged whom by doing what in the continuing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Though some of Taylor’s accusations beg for rebuttal, what’s more important than the specific arguments is throwing out politics by talking points and working to develop real solutions and understanding between Israelis, Palestinians and advocates on both sides.

In his efforts to convict Sharon as a war criminal, Taylor throws out any and all historical context; any country’s efforts during a military campaign could be portrayed as criminal, depending on how they’re framed. To say, as Taylor does, that this is what Sharon will be remembered for is similar to saying that Abraham Lincoln should be remembered for everyone who died in the Civil War, rather than the Emancipation Proclamation. Though Taylor is insistent upon calling Sharon “the Bulldozer,” one of Sharon’s most recent efforts has been to make sure Jewish settlers leave the Gaza Strip to help continue the peace process, which isn’t exactly the function of a bulldozer. (A mop, perhaps? A dustbuster?) Taylor’s most troubling accusation, however, comes when he blames Sharon himself for the multitude of problems facing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which Taylor would apparently rather still be under Israeli control. These issues exist, to be sure, but it is hardly the fault of Sharon; Palestinian leadership has been corrupt and ineffective for years, using money and resources meant for its people to pad its own high status. The proof for this is printed clearly on newspaper headlines and blogs around the world, announcing the recent victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections, not because most Palestinians agree with their extreme religious stance, but because they have promised to end the problems in leaderships that have plagued the Palestinians since Arafat.

The recent success of Hamas has also brought one of their key principles to the forefront of international attention: their insistence upon the destruction of the state of Israel. With groups like this, who have worked for decades now not to build lives of their own, but to actively fight against their neighbor, no matter what, it is easy to understand how violent military tactics may come into play. The bottom line is, you have your version of history, I have mine and everyone else has their own opinions about how things happened, who’s right, who’s wrong, etc. But more important than finding the ideal objective history (which simply does not exist) is moving on from the past to build a better future. Sharon himself is a perfect example of how one can move on from previous issues to work to build peace and security in a region marked by conflict. Even though Sharon used to be a divisive figure in Israeli politics because of his aggressive tendencies, over the past few years he has made more significant steps than any other recent Israeli leader to bring a livable situation to both Israelis and Palestinians. If you truly care about the region and its people, Mr. Taylor, you’ll wholeheartedly agree that that is the single most important thing: progress towards peace.

Both Israelis and Palestinians are at a historical crossroads, both in their internal governments and their interactions with each other. Though Taylor provided a detailed list of the various “atrocities” that Sharon has committed, arguing about events that span the past 50 years should not be the focus of discussion about Israel at this point. Far, far too many Israelis and Palestinians have died and there are people who can be faulted on both sides. But there are new and important developments on both sides now and moving forward should draw the attention of anyone with even a remote interest in the situation in Israel. Despite Taylor’s efforts to discredit a recent coma victim, Sharon is a hero, as is anyone who works as hard as he has to bring peace to such a troubled region. I am also looking forward to Taylor’s next piece, when he details the atrocities committed by Israel’s next potential partner for peace, Hamas; unfortunately, as Student Life submissions have a maximum of 800 words, it may need to be a series.

Matt is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor.

It is with regret that Student Life announces the retraction of an op-ed submission from last Friday’s issue. The submission, headlined “Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, not a hero” and written by junior Trent Taylor, drew largely on a source that was unreferenced. After comparison of Taylor’s submission with the original source, we are forced to conclude that the work constitutes plagiarism.

The staff of Student Life attempts to hold itself to the highest standards of journalistic integrity, and although Taylor is not a member of our staff, we apologize to our readership for failing to notice this issue before publication. We emphasize that the mistake is ours, and we accept responsibility. It is our hope that can use this event as an opportunity to make our stance on plagiarism clear.

Nearly all the information contained in Taylor’s article is contained in an earlier article published in the International Socialist Review. In the April-May 2001 issue of that journal, an article entitled “Ariel Sharon: War Criminal” appears that contains much of the same information. Taylor’s article does not mention the journal article.

After reviewing both carefully, we decided that the piece that Taylor submitted is, in content, a summary of the journal article. Of the six paragraphs in Taylor’s piece, nearly all the information that appears in five of them also appears in the journal article. Although the journal article is significantly longer – approximately 3,200 words as compared to the 787 words in Taylor’s article – the two pieces outline the same argument using many of the same facts. We do note that one of the six paragraphs appears to be drawn from a completely independent source; none of its information appears in the journal article.

In some instances, similar phrases appear in both articles in a manner that is striking. “Israeli forces surrounded the camps as the Phalange, with Israeli weaponry, killed every man, woman and child they found,” wrote Taylor. The journal article includes the sentence: “Israeli forces surrounded the camps as the Phalange, with Israeli equipment, killed every man, woman and child they could find.” Four other instances of similar phrasings also drew our attention.

When asked about these similarities, Taylor said that he was unaware of the journal article and said that many of these issues are commonly discussed in the literature of this topic. Given the similarities outlined above, we think that this claim is suspicious.

But the issue is complicated because the technique of paraphrasing a source is a common one in journalism. It is both necessary and useful. In no place does Taylor’s article contain more than a few words that appear in the same order as in the journal article; it is not plagiarism in the cut-and-paste sense. Rather, it gives the journal article’s argument, complete with the same evidence, but submits it as its own.

Washington University’s academic integrity policy does not strictly apply in this case, and Student Life reserves the right to discuss what does and does not constitute plagiarism. We do, however, find that policy a useful benchmark here. It states: “You commit plagiarism by taking someone else’s ideas, words, or other types of work product and presenting them as your own.” In our opinion, even though Taylor’s article rephrases and reorganizes the information, which is a legitimate technique, the content is almost all based on an unreferenced source, which is not legitimate. It is plagiarism because Taylor’s work suggests that the research and argument are his own, and largely, they are not.

We should also note that Taylor’s writing did not take more than a few phrases from the original source in a manner close to verbatim, and only after careful consideration did we, as a staff, decide that it was necessary to retract it. We do not think that he intended to do anything dishonest or unethical; in our view, the situation only demonstrates how complicated issues of plagiarism can be. We also emphasize that the error is our own, for failing to note the issue sooner.

Student Life does not possess the resources to review the extensive amount of background reading that is available on the issues that are discussed in Forum, so we would like to call upon our readers to consider this issue carefully. We do not think that our readers intend to plagiarize. We ask that our readers please be careful with citations in submissions. Had Taylor included only a single sentence more to cite where his argument first appeared, this would have been a non-issue.

We would like to thank sophomores Eitan Hochster and Jeremy Kazzaz, who independently discovered the review article while researching a response to Taylor’s submission. Again, because we cannot review all background materials on all submissions, we depend on the honesty and vigilance of our readers, even as we redouble our efforts to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

Readers can find the full text of Trent Taylor’s article here:

Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, not a hero

The full text of the article in the International Socialist Review can be found here:

www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml