I do not know. In fact, no one aside from Teachers College Professor Madonna Constantine will ever know whether or not she actually committed plagiarism.The ultimate truth of a situation cannot be attained through investigations, especially when they are clouded with accusations of bias and prejudice. As observers, all we can do is make speculations based on evidence that has been provided to us. But I do not want to make speculations as to her guilt or innocence here. There will be plenty of that in the months to come. By staying committed to the principles of compassion and love, I trust that we may be able to preserve both the integrity of all individuals involved and the community to which we are all committed.

There are different versions of truth (some favored over others) regarding Professor Constantine’s alleged plagiarism floating around the Columbia community. Some would have you believe that Professor Constantine used her students’ and colleagues’ work without proper citation. In their view, this crime should be punished to the fullest extent allowed by the University, and Professor Constantine should be no less than a pariah in the academic community as a result of her transgression. Furthermore, some have claimed, she probably planted the noose that appeared on her office door last October in order to avert attention from the investigation into her alleged plagiarism (see the IvyGate blog’s coverage of this incident and the comments posted by readers. See also the online poll conducted by the Spec in which the majority of respondents identified with this latter view).

Others will claim that this is just another instance of white supremacy and sexism at work wherein a black woman’s credibility is systematically made illegitimate. We must remember, they say, that so few black women are in academia, and those who are there face tremendous opposition from their institutions, especially if their scholarly work centers around the intersectional nature of black women’s oppression (i.e. as the subordinates of both white supremacy and sexist oppression because they are both black and women simultaneously). These allegations of plagiarism, some claim, are continuations of the historical devaluation of black womanhood and should be recognized as such.

Personally, as an advocate of black radical feminism, I am drawn to the latter view. But, as a seeker of truth, I must reflect on the situation in its totality and take all aspects into consideration. Neither one of the aforementioned views contains the complete picture. The former ignores the historical legacy the latter wishes to reveal, and the latter completely victimizes Professor Constantine without even considering the possibility that she may have committed acts of plagiarism.

Let us assume for a moment that Professor Constantine plagiarized the work of others. Instead of punishing (or “sanctioning”) her, we should be making special efforts to extend compassion to her and those who feel wounded as a result of her actions. We should be having community dialogues to emphasize the importance of academic honesty. At the same time, we should critique the environment of competitiveness here at Columbia that only breeds dishonesty and mistrust.

Perhaps Professor Constantine fell victim to the competitive atmosphere surrounding her. With the constant pressure to produce and publish scholarly work, is it that much of a surprise that some people do in fact buckle under the pressure and take drastic measures? If we placed the emotional and psychological health of our professors at a level comparable to our intellectual requirements of them, situations of plagiarism (real or imagined) would occur less often because we have created an environment of openness and love wherein people can express their doubts and fears without the threat of humiliation.

Could Professor Constantine have approached the same people who are so viciously accusing her of plagiarism with her concerns of being unable to write under the constant pressure to publish? If the answer is no, then it seems that our expectations of academic honesty should be secondary to—but not replaced by—expectations of community support. Paulo Freire, a pioneer of critical pedagogy, reminds us that if we cannot create an environment in which all of our expectations of academia can occur (e.g. academic honesty), then those expectations mean nothing.

We do not know whether or not Professor Constantine committed plagiarism. Neither do we know her motivations if she did indeed plagiarize. Nonetheless, we should have fewer conversations about punishment and more conversations about redemption and healing. Only after constructive dialogue can we even begin to discuss “punishment” or “sanctions.”

Imagine a forum in which Professor Constantine and her accusers engage in the life-sustaining practice of dialogue, actively listening to each other’s concerns and extending heart-felt compassion in understanding each other’s pain. Imagine the reconciliation that could arise from such a space. Imagine the impact such a forum would have on our community. Instead of just giving lip-service to the idea of dialogue, we would be demonstrating its importance and effectiveness, even when it is difficult and uncomfortable. Imagine an end to the lies. Imagine embracing truth. Imagine healing.

Anthony Kelley is a Columbia College junior majoring in Women’s and Gender Studies. Strength to Love runs alternate Tuesdays.