Academic Dishonesty

When looking at survey results, I found that a number of individuals believe TCU students cheat in there classes. Nearly 60% of respondents stated that that they strongly believe cheating to occur with the other 40% believing some to minimal cheating occurs. The most shocking, however, is that if I were to take the survey, I would have to agree with that 60%. 

So why do the students at TCU have such a strong perception of cheating? Are we all truly cheaters? Or are those sharing successful tales of cheating just the loudest voices? Is AI to blame? 

Personally, I feel the prevalence of cheating within the Neeley School because of the frequency in which my professors discuss academic dishonesty taking place. Whether this is through professors I have a close relationship with asking for advice or through professors warning the class of the consequences of cheating, I feel as if academic dishonesty makes its way into nearly every conversation. 

A great challenge for educators is figuring out how to navigate the academic environment now that students have unchecked access to artificial intelligence. AI can be such a beneficial tool, but it is also creates quite the temptation. This semester I took Introduction to Marketing AI, a class in which we studied the legality and ethical use of AI as well as learned how to use AI as a tool for streamlining repetitive tasks. Throughout the semester, we have wrestled with what AI could mean for students, and our professor has had candid conversations with us about struggles she has faced with AI usage in her other classes. It makes me sad to realize that so many bright students are not utilizing critical thinking and creative writing like they used to because of that unfiltered AI access. I also fear that I could have fallen into that same trap had I started my college journey with AI as it is today.

I do not envy the educators that must now rethink learning. I can image we are going to be seeing a greater uptick in handwritten, in-class work.  

Movie Review: Now You See Me, Now You Don't

For my popular media presentation, my group and I chose to discuss the movie Now You See Me. While I highly recommend the first of the series for its stellar cast and the imaginative cons, the third installment left something to be desired. 

The third film, Now You See Me, Now You Don't, follows the original cast as they reunite 10 years later and team up with a group of novice magicians. Together, they try to expose the corrupt dealing of a South African mogul who heads an international crime syndicate. While I found the movie entertaining because I love the cast, the plot was discombobulated, the writing and the acting was cringe-worthy to say the least, and the magic fell flat. 

However, relating to our class discussions on the evolution of deception, I found it interesting to see just how the writers adapted the Four Horsemen's Robbin Hood ways to a 2025 climate. It was highly apparent that the movie was trying to appear relevant to Gen Z with mentions of Covid-19, AI, social media, and general younger generation slag. The opening scene begins with the young magicians redistributing the wealth from a group of corrupt "crypto bros." While in the first film we see a similar scene dealing with mortgage fraud, the relevant change in con in this third installment reflects the evolving period in time.  

Sadly, that's about where the notable events end. Post first "heist" I can image the writers changed as then the film takes on a plot about exposing descendants of criminals from Nazi Germany, getting revenge for the death of a loved one, and righting a wrongful inheritance. If it sounds confusing and all over the place, that's because it is. However, they've made a fan of me yet and I am anxious to see the continued evolution of the Four Horsemen as the series continues and the younger cast replaces the old. 

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

If there is one thing I have learned about Charles Ponzi, it is that the man had more tenacity and ambition than I ever would have thought. Ponzi was undeterred even after years of business failure, job hopping, and time in prison. 

While I now know the story behind the infamous Ponzi Scheme, I wanted to touch on the elements I found the most shocking/interesting:

1. Contrary to my initial belief, Charles Ponzi didn't actually invent this specific scheme. Other people throughout history had run similar operations to Ponzi's, his however, was just so huge and hurt so many people that his name became attached to it in history.

2. Ponzi's original scheme wasn't illegitimate or illegal, at first. Most of the schemes we have touched on involve complete misinformation and/or are the total creation of the fraudster. However, buying IRCs overseas for cheap and turning them into U.S. stamps at a profit was legitimate, the scale at which he promised though, was not. 

3. Ponzi promised a 50% return in 45 days. This is an unbelievable promise, but for the financially illiterate that he chose to target it was so appealing for getting rich fast. With this appeal, he ended up raking in over $15 million in 1920!

4. Ponzi struck a deal so get his 86 counts of mail fraud down to only 1 and ended up only serving time for the Ponzi Scheme for 5 years! After all the lives he ruined and banks he shut down, the fact that he managed to negotiate down to 5 years served blows my mind.

I have a bridge to sell you, would you be willing to buy it?

This week I have been thinking a lot about gullibility, specifically, do the gullible deserve to be swindled? With each deception, swindler, and scam I learn about I, unfortunately, am quick to roll my eyes or feel for an instant a sense of superiority for surely not I would fall for such a thing. From 10,000 feet I see so many "red flags" and I think to myself How could anyone possibly believe that? 

Taking time to reflect, I think that I somehow believe my intelligence or my heightened sense of caution either makes me better than those who fall for deception or makes me immune to deception all together. So, with my logic, does a having a moment of ignorance make someone unintelligent? Are all those deemed unintelligent deserving of deception? Does that ignorance equal guilt? Do they deserve it?

To be deceived you first have to put your trust in someone or something, because deception is a manipulation of some form of trust. So how can someone deserve something if deception is not a fair exchange. Those who are out to deceive others are in the business of exploiting the emotions. They are not out to prey on stupidity but to mimic credibility, and even the most well educated can fall for an expertly crafted lie.  

When I think about it, those that are the most susceptible to deception just might be the best of us; the most open-minded and open-hearted. So how can I put the blame on a person like that. Society often glorifies the smooth-talkers and the hustlers (and sometimes I do too), but if I believe that deception is bad, than the blame needs to fall on the deceiver each and every time. 

All in all, I think I have started to see that no one deserves to be tricked, swindled, or deceived. Being gullible is a part of being human and instead of my mind jumping to feeling superior, it should start by feeling empathy and then maybe a little anger on behalf of my fellow humans who still hold fast to their open-hearted nature. 

Snapple's ties to the Klan?

What is Believed 

The main belief held about this conspiracy theory is that Snapple, the juice and tea company, is owned or somehow financially linked to the Ku Klux Klan. Their label depicts a subtle letter "K" that supposedly stands for "KKK" and the ship shown on older Snapple labels is allegedly a slave ship. It is also believed that the company supports controversial or extremist groups. 

How It Evolved 

These rumors first surfaced in the 1990s as Snapple began to grow rapidly as a company and popularity spread through predominantly Black communities and cities. When individuals first began to notice the "K" and ship depicted, rumors began to spread about hidden racist agendas in the corporation. In 1993, Snapple ran an expensive ad campaign clarifying that the "K" stood for Kosher and the ship was a depiction of the Boston Tea Party, however, by then the rumors had already gained traction.   

Who Believes It

At that time, the rumors circulated greatly among Black and minority communities within U.S. cities as well as through some religious groups. Because of the nature of this conspiracy theory, those with a tendency to distrust corporate motives or general brand skeptics were also quick to spread rumors regarding Snapple. Finally, teenagers and younger consumers were susceptible to the spread of Snapples alleged affiliation because of the shock value and racial tension it created.   

How It Spread 

These rumors spread primarily through word of mouth via churches, schools, and neighborhood hangout spots and later spread through message boards and email. The visual "evidence" of the "K" and the ship displayed on the bottles made the rumors easier to repeat. In terms of Snapple's counter-campaign response, some say that it may have reinforced awareness of the rumor by bringing it to greater public attention and extending the rumor's life. 

The Hustle

In 2019, MGM remade Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) into The Hustle, and leaned hard into marketing for this new “feminist twist.” The gender-swapped remake replaced Michael Caine and Steve Martin with Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson, and was supposedly a fresh take on the laugh-out-loud comedy where women would outsmart the men who underestimated them.

In practice, however, the ending of The Hustle undercut the entire premise. In Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Freddy and Lawrence are locked in a hilarious rivalry until their ultimate mark, Janet Colgate, turns out to be the real con artist, having been playing them all along. Janet flips the script, exposing the men’s egos and greed, and walks away in total control of the situation (and $50,000 richer). In Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, the climactic ending is empowering: the underestimated woman was always two steps ahead.

The Hustle tried to mirror that twist, but with a key change: instead of the women winning, their mark (Alex Sharp as Thomas) is revealed as the true con artist. In a movie marketed as “feminist,” the final joke is that the women were duped all along. Instead of reclaiming power, Hathaway and Wilson’s characters become the butt of the joke. 

The result is less a “feminist update” than it is a regression. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels gave its female character agency, intelligence, and the final laugh. The Hustle promised the same but left its heroines reduced to comic relief in a story supposedly rewritten for them and a new generation of viewers. What could have been a sharp gender-flipped satire ended up feeling like a hollow con in itself, one in which the female audience, not just the characters, was cheated.

Moral Panic

At the start of the 20th century, both immigration and urbanization were rapidly increasing. People were moving from the countryside into cities, and for the first time in American history, women were able to support themselves financially in these urban centers and gained unprecedented physical and financial freedom. With this newfound freedom also came an American fear of sexuality. Young people were changing the norms of courtship, and anxiety spread through the country about these new cities being the perfect breeding ground for debauchery.

By 1907, a panic was spreading through America. People began to believe that women were being forced into prostitution on a large scale by a malicious and established network of individuals. Horrific stories of women being drugged and kidnapped spread like wildfire through the media, feeding the hysteria.

The government responded in a couple of different ways, but most notably, the federal government put into effect the Mann Act, making it a crime to "transport or cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for" or to "persuade, induce, entice, or coerce" a woman to travel "in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia" if the travel was "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose ... whether with or without her consent."

What I find the most interesting about the Mann Act is that, as the moral panic of "The White Slave Trade" began to fade, the government used the Mann Act to target its political opponents. One notable example is Charlie Chaplin. Many officials disliked Charlie Chaplin because of his progressive views, supposed support of communism, and controversial relationships with younger women.

In the early 1940s, Chaplin was in a relationship with a younger actress, Joan Barry. As their relationship ended less than amicably, Joan accused him of transporting her across state lines for sexual purposes, thus bringing the Mann Act into play. In 1944, Chaplin was indicted under the Mann Act and, while later acquitted, the whole ordeal completely tarnished his reputation. America had lost its trust in Chaplin, and in 1952, when trying to travel back into America, he had his permit revoked, thus very nearly ending his career in America.