The technological innovation is the phenomenon known as ‘Deep Fakes’, where we see on our digital screens what appears to be a well known person saying something that fits with our idea of what they generally say publicly. But the image and the words are fabricated, and intended to mislead and misrepresent what is shown to the viewer and listener. The aim is to construct a believable facsimile of reality, manipulated to substitute false for true, to align with a political or social agenda.
This is happening in less technically augmented ways, globally, throughout the society we live in. There are plenty of people with public profiles who are armed with false credentials, whose resumes are so filled with factual errors that they can only be seen as frauds.
In days gone by, personal letters of recommendation were required in addition to a list of a candidate’s scholastic attainments and work experience, when they were applying for a professional position or a scholarship. This character reference was personally signed by someone who had known the candidate for a period of at least two years, but was not personally related to them or affiliated with them.
In these days of DIY presentation, and self promotion, we have instead a lot of claims. Like fake designer brands, where people display the labels outward at all times, the big name countries, universities and colleges are mentioned prominently on the person’s LinkedIn. But when these claims are investigated, various discrepancies become apparent, which evasions and euphemisms cannot conceal.
I first noticed this some years ago when I was interviewing a person for a teaching position with a company. He had a good resume, but there was an oddity in one of the entries on the chronological timeline: he had listed the date at which he commenced a doctorate at a prestigious university, but there was no mention of an end date, or awarding of the doctorate, or the subject and title of his thesis.
When asked whether he had omitted to mention this by accident, he blushed and admitted he had not finished the degree. Most people would not have mentioned the doctorate at all, unless it was completed. But he clearly wanted the kudos generated by being associated - even slightly - in the minds of the decision makers, with that renowned university.
I have also seen a person on Facebook list on his public profile that he had studied certain subjects at American universities, implying that he had followed a degree course with the disciplines and objective standards involved in that, when he had in fact paid 50 USD or so to do an online course offered by that university. Not the same at all.
These people who do these things have arrived at this place in their lives by a process of rationalization. Perhaps they couldn’t afford to pay the high fees to enroll in the actual courses at the actual university they claim to be alumni of. Perhaps it was geographically difficult for them to attend classes in person. Perhaps they didn’t see the value of face to face teaching, and didn’t want to make the effort to physically present themselves in class with lecturers and tutors, failing to see that direct access as the privilege it is.
The democratization, streamlining and commodification of Education is one of the features of the digital era, and it is not a ‘bad’ thing. It offers access to the course materials which are regarded as the key components in various areas of knowledge, and prompts real initiative and self learning on the part of the student.
But it also erases the dedicated transmission of knowledge from person to person which was historically at the heart of teaching. And it evaporates the joy and possibility of personal transformation inherent in that human experience, by treating a body of knowledge with its myriad aspects as units of data, to be memorized and relayed, often with minimal engagement or understanding by the student.
Of course, the practices of plagiarism and fraud have inevitably escalated, in these contexts. When a person with little respect for actual education, beyond the surface bling and sheen it brings to their professional profile, sees a gap in their own resume, they will take short cuts to fill those gaps, to augment their personal fame and perceived status.
Often these people are very active on social media, and in the blaze of noise they create around themselves, public assumptions are made that they are what they appear to be. But when you Google search them, you do not find any original work by them, or any objective third party references to them. Just a series of puff pieces, social media rants, and congratulatory comments - which are often written by themselves or their associates.
This kind of activity can be seen as a rather sad commentary on the superficiality of the world we live in, and the deep insecurity of the individuals involved, who clearly must feel they have to superglue these adornments to their public garments to appear like people of authority, and seem worthy of community respect.
But when these people are in public life, on panels and talk shows and symposiums, and influencing legislation and the perspectives of others with their opinions and advice, we would expect them to have not only credibility but integrity. We must not take people on face value. We should do our due diligence.
Calling yourself a ‘Doctor’ is not something that should be done lightly or casually, to impress others. The institution you have gained your doctorate from should exist, and be authorized to grant this degree, and the qualification should represent your successful fulfillment of the academic requirements for that course, which enables your work to be recognized on an international level.
To invent a degree course and a university in an overseas country, usually North America or England, remote from Sri Lankan visibility, and then claim in different platforms that your ‘doctorate’ was in two unrelated fields is disrespectful - both of legitimate education itself and of the public, whose positive assumptions that you speak the truth are based on simple goodwill. The success that is spray painted on such flimsy materials is dispiriting for all associated with such conduct.
People with qualifications should have copies of their course work, and transcripts, as well as their degree certificates. If they have not yet completed their courses, they should say ‘pending’ on their profile when citing the degree, until it has been awarded. If they have done the doctorate, they will have copies of their doctoral thesis. 100,000 words of original research. With a scholarly bibliography. Which has to be defended in front of an academic panel, to prove the candidate has done the work themselves.
When asked to produce these materials as evidence of their claims to call themselves ‘Doctor’, it is a red flag to be told that ‘the thesis is still with the university’. It’s not a requirement to have a higher degree to be a leader, or academic qualifications; but at least the qualifications cited should be accurate and real and valid. Or a person making false representations of themselves will be morally unqualified to lead anyone.
This is even more unconscionable when you are leading an organization, or fronting an enterprise which claims to shape society in a positive way. High standards are claimed, but an uninspiring lack of personal ethics at the top of these organizations, on the part of key figures in its structure, suggests that following where such people lead is not the way anyone’s dreams are going to come true, in any real way.
No comments:
Post a Comment