Plagiarism in High Places
The pundits on the left and the right have been fairly dismissive of Clinton's charges, largely along the lines of (b), above. Now, though, we seem to have a new plagiarism scandal brewing in high places: Nancy Nall, a blogger who used to write a column for the (Fort Wayne, Indiana) News-Sentinel, just this morning has outed News-Sentinel columnist Tim Goeglein, whom one of the commenters on her blog describes as a "White House Public Liaison officer and Karl Rove gopher" (primarily he is a liaison between the White House and the Christian Right), as plagiarizing extensively from "What is a College Education?", a late-90s piece in the right-wing Dartmouth Review by Jeffrey Hart, a long-time Dartmouth English professor who also served as an aide under Nixon and Reagan. She provides long quotations from both sources, showing just how little Goeglein changed in stealing Hart's words; Goeglein has now admitted the plagiarism (Nall broke the news this morning, and Goeglein had confessed online by noon).
But meanwhile, Nall's readers have been busy, and have uncovered numerous other plagiarized pieces "by" Goeglein, and have documented them in the comments section to her post.
As one commenter pointed out: how stupid do you have to be to plagiarize off the Internet? We shake our heads in amazement at our freshmen, who apparently aren't savvy enough in the ways of the world to avoid ripping off other people's work from websites; but this is a senior public liaison in the White House ... and a conservative guru on (get this) media ethics ... writing on education!


2 Comments:
What has interested me about the Obama "plagiarism" accusation is that the rules for plagiarism are different in different discursive fields. For example, while we in the English department think that not merely content but also phrasing is so precious, Econ courses don't see that much value in the latter.
More and more I realize just how much we in composition teach our students "how to work with written language" from an intensely limited vantage point.
Gray,
I'm a lot more interested in the fact that a plagiarism accusation seems politically expedient to Hillary. Why is that? Is it because her supporters are largely college-educated people who carry vague fears about plagiarism from their college experience, and so think--without working out exactly what plagiarism IS--that this accusation automatically kills any claim Obama might have had to integrity? Obviously Obama's integrity has been his strongest point in the campaign, even stronger, I'd claim, than his rhetorical prowess--everybody else looks tainted by comparison--and Hillary's accusation hits him on both of his strongest points.
Another thing that interests me about the accusation is that we in the English department tend to assume that plagiarism is plagiariam, period, and plagiarism is bad; but clearly things are not that simple. What about political speech? What about allusion? Those complexities, we tend to think, are too much--too complex--for our first-year students, so we simplify things down to "plagiarism is plagiarism is bad."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home