In our April 14 issue, The Collegian ran a column submitted by Hassan Ali under the headline “Immigrants an asset, contribute to America.” Ali did not attribute and quote portions of his column to their proper source, the Service Employees International Union’s official website SEIU.org, specifically the page entitled “They take our jobs’ – Debunking Immigration Myths” found at http://www.seiu.org/a/immigration/they-take-our-jobs-debunking-immigration-myths.php.

Portions? So if 90 percent of the article had been copied, you can just call that portions? The correction is so misleading. Let me dissect the column by Hassan Ali “Immigrants an asset, contribute to America” approved and published by the Collegian Opinion Editor, Mr. Gorder.

First Paragraph:
As a Djiboutian immigrant, I am proud of my new home. America is a land of immigrants-a land of opportunity. For generations, many people who came here legally or illegally made great sacrifices and worked harder than even the citizens. In numbers, immigrants have made this country what it is today and what it was a hundred years ago.

Majority of these sentences were taken from reuters.com, particularly from this post, which, by the way, was not mentioned by the correction message released this week.

Second Paragraph:
Immigration reform is in the best interest of our country’s economy and prosperity. For too long Americans have watched their neighbors, friends, coworkers and family members get deported or removed. There is nothing wrong with world citizens wanting what we have here-public education, economic opportunity and a chance to make a better life.

Now read this comment posted from this site (which was not mentioned by the correction note, again!) If Hassan Ali and Fair Thinker are of the same entity, this can be forgiven. If they are not, then majority of the second paragraph had been clipped from another website.

The rest of the three remaining paragraphs were taken from the SEIU website, almost verbatim.

Now, tell me, is that a mere mistake? Is it enough to just pardon and say “Ali did not attribute and quote portions of his column to their proper source.” Is this justice served? “Portion” is not even the correct term. The editors could have taken a strong stand and mentioned that Ali had plagiarized an article online. How difficult is it really to mention that the SDSU Collegian published a plagiarized column? Is plagiarism a word hard to accept for the editors? Should this Google search result be a valid reason to avoid the word?

And why did the correction note only mentioned the SEIU website and never the other links? Also, as of this writing – Tuesday morning – Ali’s column can still be found posted on the SDSU Collegian website. Don’t you think it is just right to have the column taken off the web?

When would the SDSU Student Code on Plagiarism [01:10:25:02] apply then; the provision carries disciplinary probation to expulsion?

The editor-in-chief may have already talked to the opinion editor and Ali about the issue, but not letting the student body know that it was a clear case of plagiarism (not just portions copied and missed attributions) is deception.

SDSU Collegian

My inclinations to writing religious articles and sharing spiritual miracles had awakened the unbelievers in many ways than one. For countless times the judgments posted were too personal. But I had devised a strategy to not read them verbatim so as to lessen the hurt. The less painful and the few uplifting comments were the needed push to keep all my articles coming each and every week. The avid readers of my columns may have already painted the story of my life, as articles tackled the bits and pieces of my existence and those around me — everything shaped in words, English words, a Filipino, me, hoped to convey.

The Collegian had been my emotional outlet. Read between the lines and you will realize that there were more to every word. Pain was not a tear, but a silent wail when I talked on the phone with my family back home. Happiness was not defined by a small smiley figure, it was the hopping and shouting and yahooing inside the rented house whenever I am alone. You see, the Collegian sometimes made me crazy. But the craziness was momentary — like that sad feeling when the warm summer weather just swifts you by and the cold rain and snow of winter begin to terrorize your day. The feeling does not have to linger forever. At some point, there comes an acceptance. Pain at times. Joy at times. Bright summer sun. Cold winter nights. I was joyful at some of my Collegian articles; others were enough to provoke a saint. However, after all the craziness, I managed not to tip the balance too much on one side and remained sane.

Saneness, and all its derivatives, should be attributed to a few Collegian editors who have trusted and believed in me. The first time I submitted the article “Fuchsia in South Dakota“, a week after my arrival in SD, former editor Jeremy Fugleberg emailed to tell me how good it was and asked if I could be part of their team as a regular columnist. Although it was not part of the plan to own a weekly space in the Collegian, there was no hesitation on my part because I wanted so much to further hone my writing skill. Jeremy and I exchanged emails until we came up with the name of my column: Foreign Eyes. The name suggested that, whenever I could, I should write something related to living abroad, about Brookings, surviving America as an international student, and stories of differences in cultures. And I did. I should credit Jeremy for giving me the opportunity to siphon my thoughts and weave them into short tales and for not looking at my style of writing as something different from the rest. I should also salute another former editor, Gay LeClair, for being patient at me most of the time. Gay was a very humble editor, and although I realized it much later, she exactly knew her limits and when to say “sorry”. There were still other editors who made every published story possible. To all of them, I say my sincere thanks.

Now I am ready to say “I quit”. I have not ripened yet, still budding as a writer, but circumstances forced me to stay out of the branch so others could take my space on the tree and prosper in my disappearance. Yes, I considered it a job even though I was not paid to write. The job that I used to love now came to a close.

The closing was harsh. There were email exchanges with the editor that went south. We disagreed on rules of publishing articles. I may have been outraged, no, disappointed, because of the rejection of my article that was supposed to cater to the minorities in the university, yet went to no avail. I may have trusted myself too much and presumed that what I had submitted was “of such importance that it may trump all other columns.” I won’t deny it – I felt good about the column and was too confident it could get printed. However, the editor said and I quote: “While I’m glad you feel strongly about your column and writing skills, I obviously did not feel the same way, and as Opinion Editor, it’s my call–plain and simple. You obviously have a problem with this decision and have taken it up with me.” In my interpretation: “Eric, shut up. I can reject any articles I want.”  By the way, in his first message to me, he said that there was nothing wrong with my piece.

Here’s more. In my opinion, and I say this with due respect to his editing skills, the editor seemed to have missed the part of knowing what was relevant for that week and what was not. I say for that week, because I believe all articles could be relevant at some specific time, and that mine would have been relevant for the week. Yet, the editor thought it was not: “The main question you had is of the importance of your column in relation to the rest. I think the fact that your column did not run is evident of this, but I felt yours was one we could do without.” This statement alone was so heavy for me to contain.

When someone begins to say that “it’s my job and I have the final say,” what option do I have? Basically, nothing. No matter how many times I have to argue hoping to see a hint of answer to a confusion, if you are told “If this is how you handle yourself because you failed to get your way and disagree with our editorial decisions, I don’t think writing for our Opinion Page is for you,” what other steps could I take? I was led to the exit door.

The editor had the final say of what gets to printing, but he could have thought much deeper (or maybe he did and all these, are my own speculations). With due respect, all the articles from my fellow columnists were excellent (yes, I read each one every week), but it is the decision of the editor to check which columns can be postponed (and could still be relevant for the next edition) and which ones should be given a light for publication because of time constraints. He could have read every piece and researched about them a bit, before finally deciding to reject one (or maybe he did and all these, again, are my own speculations).

But I have already put that one to rest. That episode was over two weeks ago. I even had the opportunity to chat with Madam Susan Smith, the Collegian adviser. She was so kind to invite me back to the team. After that, I kept quiet. Two of the staff members wanted to meet and talk to me regarding the issue, but I remained quiet. To me, Prof. Smith had already shed a light to most of my queries. Besides, there is this saying that “time heals all wounds.” And the editor could be right. He may have exercised good judgment in the selection of articles to publish. Mine was not good enough for him and I just have to wallow in my own sorrow. I thought “Oh, well, I had rejections in the past too — this, too, will come to pass.” If it will be in court, I will lose the case.

Wait. Maybe not. If you are reading this blog entry and happen to see a Collegian newspaper around (April 14 issue), grab a copy and open to page A5 – the article written by Hassan Ali. Read and reread the piece. Nothing is wrong, I know. Then head on to this link and scroll down to the middle – surprise! The columnist plagiarized an online posting. If you put the column and the original article side by side, the similarities are undeniable. Verbatim, Mr. Ali copied a post for his Collegian piece.

Now tell me, how did this happen? A plagiarized article made its way to the opinion page of the college newspaper, written by a political science/pre-law major, SA Senator and president of Model United nations.

Alright, I should not pass judgment. I must give Hassan Ali the benefit of the doubt. I should have used the word “maybe” in my statements above. My apologies Mr. Ali. Maybe you did not plagiarize anything. Maybe, the original article was yours. Maybe you own the website where your column was clipped from. All this can be proven, though, by knowing and contacting the owner/s of the domain.

If in any case, the column was copied (no attribution was ever mentioned on the column), someone should quit or be fired. If proven that the plagiarized article was published in the Collegian with the approval of the opinion editor (recall: he has the final say), then my doubt that he is not doing his job right has turned into a solid proof. I am sorry sir — I would have forgotten what had happened with my article, but with this incident anew, all has come to life again. Allowing and approving a column copied completely from someone else is an insult to me (whom you classified as someone who wrote a “not-strong” column) and to all the other columnists. Or was it really your intention to insult me? Enlighten me with this please, because I am now very confused on how articles are chosen for publication.

I will make sure I get answers to this issue. The columnist must show that he owns the online page where he copied his article from. The first line/fourth paragraph of his column it says “According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the 2007 immigration reform bill had passed, it would have generated $48 billion in new federal revenue through 2008-2017.” This statement was from the Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate of S.1348, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

Paragraph 2 of the column had this: “And yes, undocumented immigrants contribute more in taxes then they consume in public benefits. Between 1996 and 2003 they contributed an estimated $50 billion in federal taxes. They also contribute between $7 and $8 billion in social security funds annually-that’s $100 billion in the past 15 years they will never claim.” All these were copied verbatim from the original posting. This should have been referenced back to “Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the Middle Class. Drum Major Institute. 2007.”

If proven that it is indeed a copied article, is this what the opinion editor said “a strong column” that he ever wanted? Honestly, I would have not written this blog had it not for this serious issue. If my purpose was to attack the editor/s, I would have done that two weeks ago, when the wound was still fresh.

If all those involved in the printing of the questioned article can prove that it was from Ali, I will immediately take down this blog posting and write an apology post. But if I am right, I want to see actions done and editors must write an apology in the Collegian for all students to read. Quoting a line or two in the article is fine, even a paragraph or two is okay (with proper credits). But when almost everything had been copied and pasted, then that is something deserving of serious attention and action.
***
Note: The editor-in-chief of the Collegian emailed me saying “we will take these concerns very seriously and will do what we feel is appropriate to rectify the situation.” And I believe her.

Adopted: March 16, 2010
Released: March 16, 2010
By the Commission:

1. High-speed broadband is beginning to reshape every sector of our economy and many aspects of American life. Broadband service can be an indispensable engine for unleashing innovation and investment, spurring job creation and economic growth, and ensuring our country’s global competitiveness. Working to make sure that America has world-leading high-speed broadband networks—both wired and wireless—lies at the very core of the FCC’s mission in the 21st Century.

2. Recognizing the fundamental importance of broadband, section 6001(k) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act instructs the Commission to submit to Congress a National Broadband Plan.1 Specifically, section 6001(k)(2) requires the Plan to: analyze mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States; provide a detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximum usage; and include a plan for use of broadband to advance national purposes such as education, health care, energy, and public safety.

3. Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan is delivered in response to this statutory requirement. The Plan provides recommendations on a variety of issues, which the Commission will actively consider through proceedings that provide notice and ample opportunity for comment, allowing the agency to generate robust records. Although each of us may have differing opinions on some of the specific recommendations set forth in the Plan, we all share the following common beliefs:

• Every American should have a meaningful opportunity to benefit from the broadband communications era—regardless of geography, race, economic status, disability, residence on tribal land, or degree of digital literacy.

• Continuous private sector investment in wired and wireless networks and technologies, and competition among providers, are critical to ensure vitality and innovation in the broadband ecosystem and to encourage new products and services that benefit American consumers and businesses of every size.

• Strategic and prudent policies toward public resources like spectrum will benefit all Americans, by meeting current and future needs and by promoting continued innovation, investment, and competition.

• The nearly $9 billion Universal Service Fund (USF) and the intercarrier compensation (ICC) system should be comprehensively reformed to increase accountability and efficiency, encourage targeted investment in broadband infrastructure, and emphasize the importance of broadband to the future of these programs.

• Our Nation should harness the tools of modern communications technology to protect all Americans, including by enabling the development of a nation-wide, wireless, interoperable broadband network for the Nation’s first responders.

• Ubiquitous and affordable broadband can unlock vast new opportunities for Americans, in communities large and small, with respect to consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.

To read the 360-page FCC National Broadband Plan document, visit this site.

Suzanne Hinn filed the papers in Orange County Superior Court on Feb. 1, citing irreconcilable differences, after more than 30 years of marriage. The papers note the two separated on Jan. 26 and that Hinn has been living in Dana Point, a wealthy coastal community in southern Orange County.

“Pastor Benny Hinn and his immediate family were shocked and saddened to learn of this news without any previous notice,” Benny Hinn Ministries said Thursday in a statement. “Although Pastor Hinn has faithfully endeavored to bring healing to their relationship, those efforts failed and were met with the petition for divorce that was filed without notice.”

Hinn is one of the best known advocates of the prosperity gospel, which teaches that Christians who are right with God will be rewarded with wealth and health in this lifetime.

How will Benny Hinn encourage his millions of followers to stick to marriage now, when he himself could not get it right?

Video: Benny Hinn sings “EL SHADDAI”

Video:

Racist Chris Matthews!