I am conflicted by Peter Bloom’s June 3 guest column [”Academic integrity”] commenting on Smith College’s honorary degree to Northampton’s Evelyn Harris. His point about the importance of “academic integrity” cannot be disputed. But in this instance, he gives Smith College a pass on its own responsibility for academic integrity. While the writer correctly cites the letter Smith College posted on its website explaining the issue, he does not point out that the letter also has no citations — not the Harris speech’s “borrowed” language, not from whom or what sources it was borrowed.

In defending Smith’s decision, he writes “when we borrow to any significant degree, we attribute those words and ideas to their creators.” Absolutely. But neither we nor the writer know what was “borrowed” or whether it was “significant” or not. We have no documentation. We have only the Smith College letter’s undocumented assertions. We now know that Smith College had vetted and edited Ms. Harris’ speech weeks earlier. Had I been Ms. Harris, I would have believed that this assured the “academic integrity” of my remarks. This whole episode raises questions about the quality of Smith College’s own due diligence and its skills at avoiding public relations disasters — even, perhaps, its motives

It is hard to imagine how Smith College could have mangled this situation more. Demanding academic integrity of others is laudatory; Smith should take more care to ensure its own.

Kerry Dumbaugh

Holyoke