In modern society, situations in which people blame victims are not uncommon. This happens when people believe that victims themselves are to blame for their failures. Examples include abused girls who are accused of provocation, although this is rarely true. However, there is a difference between strong and weak victims. The strong claim their innocence and the guilt of the offender, while the weak agree with accusations and consider themselves guilty of their problems.
Madonna Constantine, in the considered case, is a strong victim. On the one hand, there is evidence of plagiarism and her wrongfulness, so there is a part of her guilt in the problem. On the other hand, she was indeed subject to some influence of racial bias (Arenson and Gootman). However, she does not remain silent about this problem and openly declares that she will not tolerate discrimination. Because of this, she partially overcomes the situation as a winner.
Eradicating discrimination in modern society seems almost impossible, but its existence is somewhat more acceptable than the presence of persistent cases of victimhood. When it is about discrimination, it is easier to identify innocent and guilty parties, while victimhood does not always allow determining provocations and similar details. Consequently, cases of discrimination can be resolved easier; moreover, humanity moves towards eradicating it.
Columbia must undoubtedly fight for the quality of work of its employees and pay attention to cases of victimization. They must support affirmative action policies, as otherwise, these cases will be repeated and exacerbated. For example, in the case of Madonna Constantine, the quality of her work forced her superiors to dismiss her, despite the potential threat of victimization. In this case, the charges are not related to discrimination; therefore, in general, they are legitimate and beneficial for the university.
References
Arenson, Karen W., and Elissa Gootman. “Columbia Cites Plagiarism by a Professor.” The New York Times, 2020. Web.