-8

Careful reading of the last line of this answer directly and explicitly advises the OP on what I recommend as the action that the OP take in this situation.

The reason given for its deletion is "Deleting this since it doesn’t answer the question which is about what the asker should do de jure, not what is strategically or ethically best"

"Disclose for your own benefit." The words have not changed since the post was submitted.

I would appreciate a reappraisal by another hi-rep user.

9
  • I fail to understand your logic here. The sentence you quoted (“Disclose for your own benefit.”) is clearly about strategy (even more so when taking into account the rest of the answer). Thus it does not contradict the reason given for deletion.
    – Wrzlprmft Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 9:45
  • @Wrzlprmft Did you read the twice restated quote from the OP: "Do I need to disclose my academic misconduct...?" My logic is, "Yes, [the OP] needs to disclose." Otherwise, as outlined previously in that answer, failure to disclose will result in the OP compounding the personal hazard of their previous transgression. Imagine, not disclosing, spending 3 years working at the PhD, then have a rival reveal to the institute what the OP is reluctant to reveal right now. Expulsion for not meeting academic integrity standards will lead to what, in your opinion??
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 9:52
  • 1
    “Expulsion for not meeting academic integrity standards will lead to what, in your opinion??” – My opinion on what the asker should do does not matter here. Also the asker appears to be pretty aware of these risks and able to handle them. — have a rival reveal – Academia is not a soap opera. The vast majority of academics does not have rivals, at least none that they can identify or that would be worth investigating to that extent.
    – Wrzlprmft Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 10:27
  • @Wrzlprmft "Academia is not a soap opera" this, and this, and [this] all demonstrate that "Academia" is not only those who are nearing the end of a degree, or completed one... The hallmarks are there, if you only look. My response, below, to your answer links to another pair of Academia submissions that, most certainly, fall into the category of "rivalry" and "soap opera". So be it...
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 11:03
  • @Fe2O3 Just chiming in as another mod since you asked for a reappraisal, it seems to me like this was handled appropriately. I don't have anything to add to Wrzlprmft's explanations.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 18:30
  • @BryanKrause In your time, please re-read the OP's question and the deleted answer that narrows in on the OP's view of the predicament. "But that "etc." makes me nervous" Deciding to suppress or convey (possibly!) requested background info based on opinions gleaned from the internet will haunt the OP the rest of their life. The only "win" path for the OP is to act to their own greatest benefit (be forthcoming.) If the OP's black mark doesn't matter, the institute will ignore it. If it does matter but was undisclosed, the OP risks losing everything sometime/anytime in the future. QED.
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 21:19
  • @Fe2O3 I've just done so and found it hasn't changed since I read it last and the question in particular has not changed in several years. How often do you think I should return in the future to confirm that again?
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 21:27
  • @BryanKrause I think you should bookmark that Q&A, and return to it every time you reflect on the cause and the events of the moderator's strike. You probably expect those around you to behave openly and honestly. You're at liberty, of course, to decide for yourself.
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 21:49
  • 7
    Sure, each time I think about how moderators and the broader community raised opposition to StackExchange forcing acceptance of AI-generated content I will think about this user's question from 2020 and the posts that didn't quite answer it.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 22:07

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

I deleted that answer along with two others for the same reason. Those answers had been flagged as not-an-answer.

The asker makes it abundantly clear that they are asking about whether they are required to disclose their misconduct as per the rules or questions of the programme:

  • I want to make sure I'm being truthful, but only as truthful as I have to be.

  • I think it's understandable that I want to be absolutely certain that I am required to disclose it before I do. I am trying to be honest and accurate.

When asking about what they “need to disclose”, need is clearly used in this context. The asker is not seeking strategic or ethical advice.

The last sentences of your answer read:

"Do I need to disclose my academic misconduct...?"
That "etc." will make you nervous for the rest of your career, and beyond.
Disclose for your own benefit. Sleep well at night.

This (and the rest of the answer) is strategic advice, specifically what is best for the asker psychologically.

8
  • Since you seem to be unpersuaded, and the mental health of the OP is of no concern to you, I give up. I will leave this link to an answer of yours that took the OP's words at face value. Your answer was later proven to be completely off the mark when your colleague discovered this question from the same OP a few months previous. Your approach seems to discourage this OP from taking responsibility for their past, too... (Seems that other user has since deleted their account.) Cheers...
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 10:38
  • 6
    the mental health of the OP is of no concern to you – Please stop making such assumptions. We don’t delete or non-delete answers based on what we think the asker needs to hear, but on whether it addresses the question (or is a frame challenge in accordance with this). If a non-answer contains critical information for the asker, I would convert it to a comment, but as the asker seems to be pretty aware of this (and hasn’t visited the site in more than three years), I don’t see this being the case here. Telling the asker something they already know won’t help their mental health.
    – Wrzlprmft Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 11:45
  • 1
    Your answer was later proven to be completely off the mark when your colleague discovered this question from the same OP a few months previous. – What does this have to do with this issue? Also, I fail to see how my answer was disproven. It does cover the possibility that the asker is responsible for the situation and the steps to figuring that out still apply. At no point do I claim that the asker has no responsibility. Also mind that while that asker’s previous question makes it likely that they are mostly responsible for their situation, we cannot know that either.
    – Wrzlprmft Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 11:54
  • Regarding the Q&A in which you've unilaterally made a decision as to acceptable content: suggested reading This is what Academia should be focussing on and castigating those who would seek to engage in the practice, letting them know practitioners of the behaviour are not welcome.
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 12:02
  • "hasn’t visited the site in more than three years" The SE repository is not a "daily newspaper". Questions and answers are intended to be available to "future readers" for their use. Otherwise, [duplicate] will have to be used over, and over, and over again...
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 12:05
  • @Fe2O3: Regarding the Q&A in which you've unilaterally made a decision as to acceptable content: […] – I can only presume that this is about the frame-challenge FAQ. While all posted by me, that post is base on prior discussions, was approved by votes, and the other moderators. Also, why should our site focus on eliminating reporting bias and what does this have to do with anything? Not that I say we should support it, but this site can do very little about it and has a broader scope.
    – Wrzlprmft Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 14:19
  • @Fe2O3: The SE repository is not a "daily newspaper". Questions and answers are intended to be available to "future readers" for their use. – Indeed, and thus we keep advice that is mostly specifically for the asker and goes beyond the actual question to a minimum and in the comments, as all of this is mostly noise to readers interested in the question itself. As for duplicates, I don’t get your point. If we operated like a daily newspaper, we would hardly have any duplicates, since the same question could be asked again and again.
    – Wrzlprmft Mod
    Commented Jun 21 at 14:23
  • There are, currently, over 2000 Q&A's tagged [ethics]... The Q&A at the heart of this post is not so tagged. IMO, it should be... As I stated here in the comments, if the OP's black mark is irrelevant, the admissions committee will ignore it. If that mark is not disclosed, but later revealed and judged to be "concealment", the OP's future will explode. As neither you, nor I, nor any reader, are likely to be connected with the institute, our opinion can only be, "Do what is in your own best interest. Disclose. Sleep well at night." I'm done here. Intransigence is unbecoming...
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 21 at 22:04
4

Wrzlprmft's answer is spot on. I'd like to add that, in a larger sense, we should assume that question askers are (1) adult professionals, who are (2) basically familiar with academia at the level of a prospective graduate student or higher, and are (3) asking for quasi-technical answers. In about 95% of cases, questions for which any of these these assumptions are not true should be closed.

As such, answers like "Disclose for your own benefit. Sleep well at night." are at best unnecessary and at worst patronizing. We can assume that OP, as an adult professional in academia, already knows that lying is bad. What they're actually asking, though, is very reasonable: is it possible to avoid disclosing the incident without being dishonest? This is the quasi-technical question that's being asked; any answer that does not address this question, based on references or personal experience in academia, is non-responsive. (You could argue that you were challenging an incorrect premise in the question, but such "frame challenges" must "respect the asker, in particular their expertise, privacy, and problems.").

I recommend keeping this in mind for future, otherwise you will likely continue to have a bad experience here. For example, this answer contained many "life lessons" such as quotes from the Bible, French proverbs, and ending with the statement that "we are human." But the asker was looking for academic advice about the standards for peer review, so your answer was received rather poorly. I believe your answer was really well-intentioned, and I regret that it was received so poorly -- but ultimately, most competent adults do not like getting "words of wisdom" when they wanted an answer to an objective question.

2
  • 1
    Appreciate your taking the time to respond. Thank you. In hindsight, the question should have been quickly closed. It is vanishingly unlikely that the arbiter who would make the call about the application, or chair the hearing if/when non-disclosure may become an issue for the OP in a few year's time, will read and answer the OP's question. Seeking the opinions/advice on this matter from random strangers on the internet is just plain silly. None represents the institute (likely), and none will suffer/enjoy the consequences that the OP will. I'm done with this, but, again, want to say thanks.
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 23 at 2:04
  • If the view/interpretation is grey and ill-defined, as seems to be the cause of the OP's nervousness, the best solution is to disclose. If that past misbehaviour is not important to the application, it can be disregarded by the institute. If it is important, disclosure at the time of application is the only way forward. Both avenues are to disclose.
    – user186240
    Commented Jun 23 at 2:14

You must log in to answer this question.