Talk:Madonna Constantine

Untitled
Maybe this belongs on wikipedia, maybe not. But it is the second time this professor has made national headlines.

She's alleging racism, and her lawyer is making noise, so the story will probably have legs. The unsolved noose incident will probably be reopened. American Clio (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Publications -- if she didn't write them...
This article contains a long list of Constantine's publications. Her employer, in firing her for plagiarism, has made a judgment that she didn't actually write some of them. It seems to me, therefore, that the ones she has been determined to plagiarize shouldn't be listed here as her publications. Thoughts? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity of evidence rejected?
Hi User:Jwcampbe - on the passage that you changed - in working on that sentence, I used the following paragraph from the Voice story as the basis:
 * "In response, the college's investigator suggested that the documents were not authentic, telling Giacomo that their authenticity could not be verified. Giacomo acknowledges that Temple could not independently provide copies of the records."

Does that not seem sufficient to support a statement here to the effect that "Columbia officials rejected those claims, asserting that the authenticity of that evidence could not be verified."? cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Nomoskedasticity. I couldn't find this comment for a while - as I've mentioned before - not much of a Wikipedia editor. Looking through the coverage, there are a few instances that I've now been able to find where the press states that "Columbia officials" said - and, not quoting them directly - the evidence "could" not be verified. But every official mention I have seen - on the record - states that evidence "was" not verified. Which may seem like a minor distinction. Also - no where has any of the specific evidence been dealt with in the press. The Temple documents referred to above are only a small portion of the evidence the articles are discussing.

Also - it's worth pointing out that the press does cite multiple opinions on this, for example, from the Spectator http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55222:


 * Giacomo demands a "de novo" review of all evidence of plagiarism, including "expert analysis verifying the numerous electronic files which demonstrate priority of authorship" of the passages which Constantine is accused of stealing from colleagues. Since the FAC apparently did not consult with any witnesses who would vouch for Constantine's prior authorship, Giacomo claimed that this new investigation would give the FAC an "opportunity to address these deficiencies."

Late in the same article:
 * The FAC dismissed Constantine's earlier appeal, saying that her evidence was not verifiable. Representatives from Giacomo's firm said they went to great pains to verify evidence—specifically, submission letters from editors that seem to prove that Constantine wrote the passages first—and circulated a spreadsheet detailing evidence of Constantine's innocence for each allegation of plagiarism.

A later article in the Spectator (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55204):
 * The FAC report allegedly did not analyze the “plethora of documentary evidence” presented by Constantine and verified by third parties, including Teachers College records.

Whether or not the documents were verified by the College is not in dispute. What is being disputed is whether or not the documents could be or are verified. TC never alleges that they tried to verify the documents - and the only statements that suggest that are rephrasings by the press. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one I think. TC says that Constantine's documents have not been verified; Constantine's lawyer says they have. But TC did not attempt to verify them independently.

I'm not sure what phrasing is best to convey this.Jwcampbe (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Stonewalling"?
There are two problems with the statement that "Columbia University stonewalled law enforcement for 24 hours, originally demanding a subpoena, before agreeing to release security tapes that could help identify the suspect."

First, "stonewalling" is a judgmental term and not a descriptive one. To stonewall is to delay without proper grounds. It's far from clear that insisting on a subpoena was improper, or that it was unreasonable to spend 24 hours evaluating whether one was needed.

The second problem is that Teachers College is a separate legal entity from Columbia University. They're closely affiliated, of course. But TC has its own buildings and its own administration. The security system is TC's, and decisions about it are made by the TC administration. It was TC that took 24 hours to hand over the tape, whether the delay was justified or not. Columbia had no role in the decision.

I don't want to change that sentence unilaterally. Perhaps someone will have a good rejoinder to my comments. I'll revisit this page now and then to see if others disagree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.239.249 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has responded, I have changed the sentence to "A day after officials asked for security tapes that could help identify the suspect, Teachers College agreed to release them. It had originally said it would do so only if the tapes were subpoenaed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.239.249 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madonna Constantine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111083154/http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-07-09/news/Columbia-Knotty-Noose-part-two/full to http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-07-09/news/Columbia-Knotty-Noose-part-two/full
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611105352/http://wcbstv.com/local/noose.columbia.surveillance.2.342261.html to http://wcbstv.com/local/noose.columbia.surveillance.2.342261.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Madonna Constantine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028013900/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/10/11/2007-10-11_columbia_reverses_course_agrees_to_give_.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/10/11/2007-10-11_columbia_reverses_course_agrees_to_give_.html
 * Added tag to http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55204/toggle/sticky?destination=frontpage&token=f0dbe3c9be437b513758ff71e3dbb022
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015235511/http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56194/toggle/sticky?destination=frontpage&token=5ebbd29d6377b036ccf112ada68dd87f to http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56194/toggle/sticky?destination=frontpage&token=5ebbd29d6377b036ccf112ada68dd87f
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528160346/http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/03/17/constantine-loses-first-suit-against-teachers-college to http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/03/17/constantine-loses-first-suit-against-teachers-college

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)