Trying Opal at Harvard?

Perhaps one of the most frequently discussed aspects of the Opal Mehta controversy, and one of the most divisive, is the possibility of disciplinary action against its author, Kaavya Viswanathan ’08, by the Administrative Board of the College. Had her work been submitted for course credit, there would be no question that the Ad Board should act, whether or not the offense was intentional. But the current situation raises important questions about the distinction between a student’s academic career and personal life, and what the limits of the College’s disciplinary jurisdiction ought to be.

The Ad Board does have—and should have—broad authority in cases such as the present one. As the Faculty of Arts and Sciences states in the Student Guide to the Ad Board, “by accepting membership in the University, an individual joins a community ideally characterized by free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change.” Membership in that community extends beyond the end of class each day and beyond the gates of the Yard. And, thus, it remains the prerogative of the community to enforce its fundamental values regardless of where or when they are violated. The standards of honesty and integrity expected of students are expected universally, and it does not represent a particularly onerous burden for the College to expect honesty in a student’s general as well as academic endeavors.

The opportunity to attend a private university such as Harvard is a privilege rather than a right, and that privilege may be reasonably reconsidered in light of a student’s actions. The Ad Board explicitly recognizes “resolution of...breaches of community standards” as one of its primary functions. While some might reasonably argue that the College should do more to ensure that students are aware of its expected standards of behavior, that those standards should apply broadly is in the best interest of our institution.

What does all this mean for Viswanathan? Her work was knowingly and intentionally associated with Harvard—indeed, the first line of the author’s biographical information in the novel, above all, noted that she is a Harvard student. Regardless of the particulars of guilt or innocence in this case, it is manifestly a valid concern of the Harvard community. Instances of plagiarism in the novel may have been unintentional, but its association with Harvard certainly was not.

For a variety of reasons, many are opposed to the idea of any censure from the Ad Board in this specific case. Some believe that the College should not interfere in what is not primarily an academic matter, others, that any offense committed has already been amply punished without Harvard’s intervention. To yield to either consideration, however, would be an abdication of responsibility. Media attention is not an acceptable surrogate for affirmation by the College of its values. Similarly, respect for these values must always be expected of students if affiliation with the community is to mean more to its members than access to classes and library facilities. While it would be premature to call for any specific disciplinary action, it is clear that the Ad Board ought to investigate the allegations at hand.