The Fabrication of Academic Credentials Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The academic field is primarily concerned with reporting facts about various phenomena, so authenticity permeates the works and people responsible for them. However, there are people who do not believe that they should be as authentic as the information they compile and resort to lying and stealing. Plagiarism is a common issue, but some go as far as forging their academic credentials. The story of Marilee Jones is about that particular act, and, while her motivation is interesting to unravel, the reaction to the case reveals much about the tolerance to that kind of deception.

It is difficult to pinpoint the source of outrage for Jones’s actions. She was fired from her cherished position immediately, and one would think that it was a direct response to the discovery of her having forged the degrees she did not actually have (Hoover, 2009). However, Jones had other circumstances that aggravated her case: the longevity and the post she had held (Hoover, 2009). Perhaps, those had a more profound impact on the decision to fire Jones than the act itself. First of all, she had worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for decades and had the staff’s trust (Hoover, 2009). Her betraying it could be considered a more serious offense than what Jones had committed. On the other hand, she was a dean of admissions whose job was directly connected with ensuring that future students were honest (Hoover, 2009). Jones’s actions morally contradicted the basics of her position, so her dismissal was logical. Overall, the case is complex, and it is worth considering the circumstances that could have overshadowed the act of deception.

If familiarity breeds contempt, for Jones, it was her safeguard. Throughout Jones’s career of about 30 years, she had had many chances to admit to her wrongdoing, especially while holding a minor position. Nevertheless, Jones chose not to, out of fear of losing her job or for another reason, but when an opportunity to do so presented, she continued the pretense (Hoover, 2009). The fact that Jones’s fabrication of the credentials remained unchecked was mostly due to her impressive record with MIT and the trust she had gained over the years (Hoover, 2009). However, the longevity had more of an adverse effect on Jones, as it became decades of lies to those who confined in her. Still, even after her dismissal, Jones retained the support from the people she had helped (Hoover, 2009). For them, Jones’s degrees were probably irrelevant; it was her encouraging words that mattered. Altogether, Jones had certain benefits of associating with MIT for a long time, but it happened to be a double-edged sword when she was exposed.

While one group of people could ignore Jones’s fabrication of her credentials, potential students of MIT and the relatives probably found it hard to do so. What made the story particularly breaking was, perhaps, the fact that Jones was a dean of admissions. She was supposed to make the process of accepting new students transparent and fair, and she even rebuked those who were not honest in their essays (Hoover, 2009). The hypocrisy of the situation paints Jones as a villain, although she was not necessarily one. However, those who were rejected by MIT may want to know how much influence the dean who perpetrated deceptions she had preached against had in their lives. Overall, Jones’s biggest crime, if it is applicable, was not just fabricating her credentials; it was doing so while telling other people that similar acts were wrong.

After considering the circumstances of the case, which seemingly impacted its gravity, it is essential to analyze the act of faking one’s credentials. Technically, Jones did not commit a crime, as no one persecuted her or took it to court (Swidey, 2019). On the other hand, what she did could be considered a CV fraud, but it still does not constitute a criminal act (Larson, 2018). MIT apparently deemed Jones’s losing her job and feeling remorse a sufficient punishment, although the latter did not happen, as Jones was optimistic about the fabrication being exposed (Hoover, 2009). However, she still must have felt the consequences of her action, or inaction in resolving it earlier, as Jones did want to make a comeback (Hoover, 2009). Generally, the act of CV fabrication would equal an offense for which Jones deserved a sanction, but it remains unknown which role the circumstances played in the end.

The question remains if Jones can be redeemed and return to her previous position. At the time the article was written, such idea probably seemed preposterous, as she could barely perform the role of a speaker (Hoover, 2009). These days, it appears that she holds a similar position at a private high school (Swidey, 2019). Although Jones could have learned her lessons to apply them in the job, the hypocrisy is still present. However, the school administration must have known Jones’s record and still accepted her. People’s willingness to forgive Jones is the motive of the case: despite committing an offense against authenticity that is very much relevant to higher education institutions, Jones prevailed in demonstrating her honesty while addressing the situation. Perhaps, she does not deserve redemption as a dean of admissions, but as a person who had her reasons to keep the truth hidden, Jones might have support.

In conclusion, this paper commented on a complicated case of Marilee Jones, who fabricated her academic credentials while holding the position of a dean of admissions. The complexity of the situation comes from her longevity at the institute where she had worked and the implications of authenticity within Jones’s job. Those circumstances could have considerably affected the outcome, as trust in Jones and her professional abilities was completely undermined. She lost her job, but she gained relief and some support, which gave her hope of a comeback. Jones eventually made a silent one in the same position, and while her morals as a dean are doubtful, in a way, she had a personal redemption.