The California Aggie Controversies

 InfoInfo
Search:    

    1. The Hamilton - Kennedy Affair
    2. Budget Woes
    3. Anne Clarke's Waiter Rule
    4. The Ousting of Daniel Stone
    5. May 11th, 2005
    6. May 2nd, 2005
    7. Finals Week 2004
    8. March 10, 2004
    9. March 7, 2003
    10. April 23, 1999

In its nearly century-long history, the Aggie has had its share of controversies and scandals. Some of these are catalogued in different places on the wiki (mostly in the pages for individual people), but this page serves to organize them all under one heading for informative purposes.

The Hamilton - Kennedy Affair

The Aggie published a correction for plagiarism on May 10, 2007. Eddie Lee, who had just been selected by the Campus Media Board as the next year's Editor in Chief, was fired from his sports staff writer position for pulling material from a press release without citing it. This is generally not considered egregious, and typically this type of offense only merits a warning in major newspapers such as The Sacramento Bee. But Aggie writers had been fired for plagiarism in the past (see below), so it had to have been known that being fired was a possible consequence for plagiarism.

Five days later, 31 members of the Aggie staff submitted a letter calling for the resignation of Editor in Chief Peter Hamilton and Campus Editor Talia Kennedy. The letter alleged that training for the incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee had been designed unfairly and illogically, causing him to err in the original plagiarized article. The letter demanded an explanation for unnecessary expenses incurred by Kennedy and Hamilton at a recent awards ceremony. The letter also said that Kennedy and Hamilton had an ongoing relationship that was negatively affecting the newsroom atmosphere, concluding that Hamilton no longer had the Aggie's best interests in mind.

Hamilton and Kennedy responded with a letter denying all the accusations and demanding the resignation of all 31 signatories of the first letter.

The Campus Media Board decided to put Hamilton and Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of the year and appointed Managing Editor Marion Everidge as interim Editor in Chief. Everidge immediately reinstated Lee as a staff member and allowed him to continue his training to become Editor in Chief for the upcoming school year.

According to rumors at the time, Hamilton locked the staff out of the website and changed the lock on the Editor in Chief's office. Kennedy created a sockpuppet account, AnonAggie, on the wiki in September and accused former Copy Chief Kacey Coburn of an unrequited romantic desire for Hamilton which led to her calls for his resignation.

The Aggie staff regrouped after the departure of Hamilton and Kennedy and the basement was much less volatile the following year.

Budget Woes

Due to poor management and the general downturn in the economic fortunes of the newspaper industry, the Aggie has experienced several years of deficit.

At the close of the 2006-07 school year, the deficit stood at $117,566.94 (please provide a source for this information). The Aggie's finances are the responsibility of three members of the staff: the Editor in Chief, the Business Manager, and the Advertising Manager. These positions were held by Peter Hamilton, Mia Szmuch, and Christina Chin, respectively.

Despite the deficit, Christina Chin was again selected as Advertising Manager for the 2007-08 school year by incoming Editor in Chief Eddie Lee and incoming Managing Editor Caitlin Kelly-Sneed.

No information is currently available on previous deficit years.

Anne Clarke's Waiter Rule

Weekly columnist Anne Clarke was relieved from her contract on April 26, 2006 for a column the week before called "The Waiter Rule." The column had many similarities to an April 14 USA Today article [WWW]"CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character." Hilariously, USA Today's article was [WWW]also plagiarized. The public explanation for why she was terminated was printed on the front page of the April 24th issue, but does not appear to be online.

The Ousting of Daniel Stone

Daniel Stone had served as Editor in Chief at the Aggie for just over seven months before the other members of the editorial board authored a letter expressing their disapproval of Stone's actions. They alleged that Stone secretly altered the wording and meaning of an editorial that had been written about the Celeste Rose case so that it was less critical of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. Stone was accused by the board of lying about the incident when confronted.

In an email to the staff (an excerpt of which was published in the paper), Stone admitted to changing the editorial. The following week he submitted his resignation in a letter also published in the paper.

May 11th, 2005

- Conservative columnist Ian Watson is [WWW]released from The California Aggie for allegedly plagiarizing another columnist's article. According to Ryan P. Fuller, editor at the time, Watson's article [WWW]Maybe not so dark "bore a striking resemblance to" The Daily Standard columnist Johnathon V. Last's [WWW]"Case For The Empire".

Ryan P. Fuller sent an email to the Aggie staff explaining the termination. 

Dear staff,

As some of you may have heard, I had to remove Ian Watson from the staff today. I've
included the editor's note that is running on tomorrow's front page. The similarity
between his column "Maybe not so dark" and Jonathan V. Last's column, "The Case for
the Empire" (May 16, 2002, The Daily Standard) is highly noticable. Several people
have compared the two columns and agree, including The Aggie's attorney, Rochelle
Wilcox. Watson admitted that he read Last's column, but that this is an arugment he
has made several times. He said that he did not deliberately lift anything from the
article.

I'm including the links for all of you to judge for yourselves.

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=3D9029 (Ian Watson's column)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp
(Jonathan Last's column)

The Aggie has a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. The best definitition that I can
give for plagiarism is claiming an idea or writing to be originally yours when it is
not. Plagiarism is not just copying something verbatim, but includes emulating the
structure and tone. The best way to avoid plagiarizing is to cite. Attribution is one
key factor that lends credibility to news institutions. I edited Ian's column and I
thought the idea of the empire (referred to as the dark side) was unique, as I had
never heard of it before. He has breached my trust and that of our staff and readers.
Additionally, I will be going back over Watson's work since he started working to see
if there are suspect columns.

Check with your editors if you are unsure about anything about what constitutes
plagiarism.

Best,

Ryan

Ian then defended himself in the following letter: 

Hello everyone,

I haven't met most of you, but since Ryan's staff email went out I thought that I had
might as well respond. I'll start with a little background.

I have been (feel like I am coming clean with a drug addiction here or something) a total
Star Wars nut for years. I have watched the movies more times than I can remember, I
played the card game (think Magic) when I was younger, I have read many of the expanded
universe books, and played countless hours of the video games (the MMORPG included...
obsessively for a stint). This may seem like pointless information, but it is not because
I have made this similar argument many, many times.

See, I am a person that takes the conservative and often contrary position on many things
just for kicks. Taking the Empire's side is just another example of this. Me and my geeky
friends would ramble on about this constantly because it is a constant point of debate on
the online game Star Wars Galaxies (because players can be both sides... look at the
forums if you don't believe me). I have made this argument many, many times. To further
drive this point home, I read a lot of Objectivist literature (which is probably worse
than being a Star Wars nut), and argue with folks about it constantly. Star Wars is a fun
debating point amongst them (again, look it up if you don't believe me).

The problem with the "Empire is Good" argument, especially with regards to possible
plagiarism, are as follows: if you stick to the movies (which I did) there is very little
source material to work from, the argument must be made by comparing actual results of
the governmental systems (further numbering down the possible ways to approach the
topic), and you need to do it in a chronological fashion (otherwise it makes very little
sense... you can't put the chicken before the egg).

Consequently there is very little room for variation if you are making the same argument.
I wanted to write on the topic because I am a "down with the rabble" sort of guy (heh,
should have used that) and the new movie is coming out. The complaints that Ryan had with
the column, and my responses, are as follows.

1. Similarity of structure: you have to make the point chronologically, otherwise the
reader will get confused. You also have to dismiss imagery, a key point that Lucas drives
home (constantly... borderline Scarlet Letterish). You can not explain the empire
properly without showing that it is a direct contrast to what was before it; before there
was a republic but chaos and death, after there was an empire that provided peace and
stability. You have to explain the republic, the power behind the republic as being
undemocratic, the change, and what resulted. It was not plagiarism, just the structure
the argument had to follow. Stupid problem for me to get in? Yes. Plagiarism? No.

2. The quotations were the same: This results from limited source material. Governmental
structures and their effectiveness are only mentioned a couple of times in the movies. In
order (off the top of my head)... Queen Amadala has one good quote in the first movie,
Senator Palpatine has two rather vague quotes (didn't use his because... well he is an
evil nasty dude and it hurts the argument), Tarkin has a couple of lines early in the
first movie (more on that later), and then... Vader (Anakin had one in the first movie,
but it was the same point that Amadala made). Of course I am going to use the best
possible quote the movie has to offer to support my point, the fact that we use the same
very limited source material doesn't make it plagiarism.

3.  Similarity of adjectives: the ones that I can see are "meritocracy", "patrol the
skies", "divine right", and "regional governors". The regional governors is a direct
quote from GM Tarkin in Episode IV. Divine right and meritocracy are frequently debating
points amongst objectivist folks... but that patrol the skies /collect taxes part?
Well...

This is where I admit that I did read that column. About three years ago. Because I talk
about this sort of stuff all the time, and I really liked the column, I must have
internalized it more than I had thought. His column is thrown around all the time on SW
Galaxies forums, and his wording is used frequently. I guess I just picked up his phrases
without thinking about it.

For that I am sorry, I should have looked up his column again to make sure that the
similarities were not so pronounced (and they are in some parts, I admit that). I should
have picked a topic where the argument could be made from a variety of standpoints, with
only one logical mold for it I put myself into a bad situation. But I want to reiterate
this point: I did not copy his column. I wrote this column in the car and the quotes were
(sad, I know) off the top of my head and later confirmed with the DVD's that I own. I was
stunned when a friend emailed me the DS column, which was shortly followed up by a phone
call from Ryan. I was disappointed that I got fired before I was even allowed to speak in
my own defense, regardless of whether it mattered or not the illusion would have been
nice. The editors probably made the right decision anyway, excuses are just excuses after
all.

Anyway, what would be the purpose of my plagiarism to begin with? We make little to no
money, I got tons of grief for what I wrote on a daily basis, and I have no intentions of
making this a career (peanut gallery: thank god). I did this for fun, as soon as it was
no longer fun I would have just quit. I wrote on Star Wars because... it was fun and I
know an unhealthy amount about the topic. Again, plagiarism is inexcusable and I
understand the editors reasons for canning me, but I'd at least like this to be seen as a
me getting into a stupid situation rather than stealing someone's work.

Anyway, it was nice working with you all. And by working with you all I mean thanks
editors and copy folks for changing my might of's to might have's, explaining to me what
a semicolon actually is, offering 4 times to give me additional copies of the Aggie Style
book, and giving me a chance to write. It was fun while it lasted.

Ryan: Can I get a letter published to respond to my firing? It'll be nice, I swear.

Ian Watson
Fired California Aggie Columnist
ijwatson@ucdavis.edu

ps: please don't pick apart the problems with my defense, I know it was stupid, I'm sorry,
let me get fired in peace [[and if this is the second time you got this email, sorry... I
hate Geckomail]]

Ian Watson's [WWW]public reply was published on May 12, 2005.

May 2nd, 2005

The California Aggie recently refered Student Judicial Affairs to students BrentLaabs and Chad Van Schoelandt for "misappropriating" copies of the newspaper. Laabs and Van Schoelandt were conducting a study on whether or not the Aggie is overprinted. For more information, refer to California Aggie Printing.

Finals Week 2004

March 10, 2004

March 7, 2003

Conservative columnist Igor Birman successfully sues The California Aggie after being fired for "being too controversial"

April 23, 1999

- "Another Dimentian", a comic strip in The California Aggie, depicts a missile striking the Ethnic Studies program. Many people decry the strip to be racist and in poor taste, including from the Provost and Chancellor. Editor-in-Chief Sara Raley issues a front page apology the following Tuesday. The cartoon is removed from the website and the staff members received diversity training. [WWW]Detailed here.

Jonah Ptak, the strip's author, felt his strip had been misinterpreted. His argument can be found here. [WWW]http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/050799/DL_aggiecartoon2.html

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2005-05-11 14:05:19   The Aggie didnt cease the tradition of the spoof editions entirely. Ryan Fuller chose not to do one that year due to various reasons, none of which include the "backlash." If it was due to the backlash of the 2002 edition, then the one in 2003 would never have happened. —MattJojola

2005-05-11 17:47:20   I believe there is controversy because it was stupid to kill the spoof...even for one year. —GeorgeLewis

2005-05-11 20:05:25   Well, other than it being a Freedom of Speech issue, it also reflects on the integrity of the paper. Because it generated a modicum of controversy in 2002 (that nobody cares about anymore), it had its balls cut off the next year and was finally put to sleep in '04. Maybe it'll return in '05, who knows? But I think (and others seem to agree) that ending a 33-year old tradition is definitely a controversial decision. —JesseSingh

2005-05-12 04:03:54   The "most notable" part of the '02 controversy was NOT the Tiqula Bledsoe depiction. Not by a long shot. If you don't know what I'm talking about... oh well. —ElvinLee

2005-05-13 02:22:43   Does anyone know if Watson's "Letter to the Editor" in yesterday's Aggie was edited by him from his very long letter? Or was it edited by the Aggie? I know they reserve the right to make edits for spatial reasons. —JesseSingh

2005-06-29 13:35:06   I wrote two letters in, the long one I sent to the staff. I also sent in a 200 word one that was published. —IanWatson

2006-02-03 00:35:52   i think it's time Stone gets his own no-confidence vote —ApolloStumpy

2006-02-06 09:28:08   I think they should re-form the Aggie as a Wiki. Then they can revert a few times, everyone gets their say, it dies down and no lasting damage is done. Would save a lot of paper too! —SteveDavison

2006-02-06 22:01:13   OMG I totally called it! —ApolloStumpy

2006-02-06 23:00:05   I was going to write a heated letter to the editor, I might now write a mellowed-out one, but on Sunday an Aggie friend told me there would be some news about Daniel Stone Monday. That could've meant only one thing. The real irony of the situation is that if Stone was worried about getting a letter of recommendation, he might have just killed it. —KarlMogel

2006-02-07 00:48:54   Maybe Chancellor Vanderhoef can find him a job —ApolloStumpy

2006-02-13 10:34:13   That letter to the editorial board about Dan Stone was really bitchy. The only mistake he really made was to crumble under the pressure of the other editors. I'm sure it was a mistake, but kind of a minor one. Really, it is the editor-in-chief's ultimate decision on what goes and what doesn't until he's unseated ... and I mean unseated, not told to resign. Plus, what B.S. is it that they wanted the editorial printed since it obviously wasn't a consensus? Whoever wrote that letter was on a bigger power trip than I Dan Stone would have been. —Saul

2006-02-15 08:53:00   So what the hell is going on with this? sorry if i've missed it, but has there been any official explanation from the Aggie about the Stone brouhaha? The only thing I've seen is that Stone resigned because his leadership caused "challenges"...wtf does that mean? Is the letter on the wiki authentic or not? Did Stone really change the editorial to curry favor with the chancellor? If so, how do we know he hasn't "slightly altered" every article about the chancellor, or even just influenced coverage of the chancellor? How do we know if he was on Larry's secret payroll? i think the aggie has to give some explanation to its readers how its chosen leader sold out...this to me, seems far worse than plagiarism —ApolloStumpy

2006-02-15 22:56:09   whatever. I think the aggie is a respectable paper, and that's why I expected to give a full account of what actually happened, as would be expected of any organization whose leader did something so wrong that he felt he had to resign, but more importantly, affected the organization's service to the public. I guess the real reason there is no push to give a full account because apparently few of your readers care what gets printed, and the aggie staff is apparently content with that status quo. I think it's believable Stone's love for the chancellor didn't affect anything else...but I guess we just have to take daviswiki's word for that, as opposed to a real questioning of people involved. —ApolloStumpy

2007-05-16 08:58:41   I would like to note the irony of the number of errors in the edits to this page by the staff, anyway, that is hardly a controversy or anywhere near sensationalist enough for this page —DavidPoole

2007-05-17 06:50:41   I was browsing The Aggie's archives and came across something interesting printed exactly one year ago.

"Alas, The Aggie is now in the hands of Peter Hamilton. I am incredibly better-looking than he is, yet he's stealing her away from me. Let's hope when he's writing this column next year, he'll have the same great memories and will have just as hard of a time letting go."

2007-07-05 15:13:07   The California Aggie is a great example of the lack of ASUCD Cost Control and checks and balances and ever-growing money-wasting bureaucracy at UC Davis. While many of these people spend their time hanging out on Facebook, leaving the actual work to just a few, various wrong facts and other mis-information is flagrantly published on a regular basis. The recent drama with the editor and what not was ridiculously lame and a horrible waste of student's fees. The only reason most people even pick up a copy of the Aggie is for SODUKU anyways. —UncleBob

2007-07-12 01:11:15   During Spring 2007, The Cal Aggie discontinued publications of the Campus Judicial Reports after an abrupt notice made of such fact to the Campus Judicial Board. I would add that to the list of Controversies but I do not have an exact date of the event. —AlexQuan

2007-09-05 11:59:35   If only the Aggie would write about their internal drama, people actually might read the articles. —JamesSchwab

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.