Dear fellow students,
in the plagiarism context, I find it interesting if there has ever been a similar case in the US?
In Germany, the case of the former minister of defense is the most prominent regarding politicians that cheated in their thesis using sources incorrectly:
" In 2011 the chancellor’s Christian Democrats were rocked by scandal. In March her party’s brightest young star and federal minister of defense, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, resigned after it emerged that he had plagiarized his doctoral dissertation."
taken from: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/angela_merkel/index.html?scp=1&sq=Karl-Theodor%20zu%20Guttenberg&st=cse
You can find a more detailed report in a German publication (SPIEGEL):
http://www.spiegel.de/thema/karl_theodor_zu_guttenberg/
Resign? Oh, Gerda. We PROMOTE our plagiarists.
ReplyDeleteThanks to America's fascination and fundamental belief in the redemption of the fallen -- this particular plagiarist is now a heartbeat away from the being the one of the most powerful leaders in the world. Probably right behind whoever runs the Deutsche Bundesbank in influence. ;)
The Write Stuff?
Why Biden's plagiarism shouldn't be forgotten.
By David Greenberg|Updated Monday, Aug. 25, 2008, at 1:35 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html
The lede:
"Teachers and scholars consider the unattributed use of someone else's words and ideas to be a very serious offense, but the public doesn't seem to mind much, at least when it comes to politics. The incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race have drawn little comment since his selection as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate—just as revelations of plagiarism by Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin scarcely hurt their book sales. In 1987, before Biden quit the race, he called the incidents "a tempest in a teapot." Although most reporters disagreed then, at least enough to pursue the story, they seem now—perhaps jaded by two decades of scandal-mongering—to have come around to Biden's view."
Best quote/passage from Greenberg's Slate article:
"'I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect," Biden sniped at the voter. 'I went to law school on a full academic scholarship.' That claim was false, as was another claim, made in the same rant, that he graduated in the top half of his law-school class. Biden wrongly stated, too, that he had earned three undergraduate degrees, when in fact he had earned one—a double major in history and political science. Another round of press inquiries followed, and Biden finally withdrew from the race on Sept. 23."
I don’t really want to be too tough on Joe. He's a fair target because of his position, otherwise I want a much more intimate knowledge of the facts in order to gauge intent -- and I don’t want to rehash time weathered incidents that obviously play to political partisanship.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, politicians are certainly not he only subspecies that succumbs to professional or human failings.
More below. Sorry for the length, but it is probably my last chance to post for several weeks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI redacted the prior posting to eliminate information that could potentially identify a subject who unavailable available for rebuttal or comment. The disclosure is also not relevant. I repost the redacted version below -- Cheers, Lee
ReplyDeleteAs with many offenses, absent intent, improper attribution is not plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I see attribution issues and plagiarism all the time -- in all its myriad forms. I encounter it monthly in reviewing the manuscripts, screenplays, and reports penned by authors who are usually thereafter consigned to the dustbin of writing history. No legitimate publisher will touch them unless it is clearly an unintentional case AND the offender has a long track record of integrity and accomplishment.
The worst case of plagiarism I've ever personally encountered was from a researcher/instructor at a globally renowned university who copied entire websites, slapped their name on top and turned the resulting essays in to me as original submissions for publication (along with invoices for payment). It was a case of repetitive, flagrant, and verbatim plagiarism (and fraud).
Upon discovery, we established a pattern and practice. When confronted, the offender admitted the acts, but showed no remorse. All fees were returned and I expunged work across multiple platforms. To my knowledge the academic remains subsequently unpublished, but he/she still teaches at the university level.
On the other hand, because I have an American's heart for Old West style redemption, I have helped offenders with extenuating circumstances turn into highly trusted experts and colleagues who are zealots for standards of excellence.
Although not relating to plagiarism, such zeal in the redeemed is also on display in the recent Page One doc on the NYT. Listen to David Carr's words and love for the NYT --an organization that offered him a second chance and career redemption. Listen to his respect for journalism. It is simultaneously tough, tender, and genuine. Although Carr's earlier troubles were largely personal (not plagiarism) his zeal for honesty and standards are common in the redeemed.
We all have feet of clay and make honest errors -- and redemption is important to both individuals and society -- and sometime we interpret our own actions differently than do others. For example, the dispute over Romenesko's alledged lack of proper attribution in writings for Poynter is, IMHO, specious. An intent to deceive and take credit for others' work is the essential element, and that was not initially alleged or supported by the facts. In her post on Romenesko, Lauren points out there are, however, deeper layers to this story.
It is important, however, for Harvard and other schools to set and enforce draconian "zero tolerance" standards with regard to attribution because schools also act as standard bearers and gatekeepers. But outside of academia the situation in professional publishing can quickly become murky. There are what I call "English professor" standards of plagiarism (i.e. academic standards) and then there are legal standards used in professional publishing. The two standards are -- in application, interpretation, and practice -- often very far apart.
All I know for certain is that the quickest way to lose the needed essential trust of your editor or publisher is to fail to attribute properly your work AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. The first rule is, "Don’t make a mistake." But the second rule is, "If you ever do make a mistake, don’t lie about it." If you make a genuine mistake, your actions and intent will survive the spotlight of scrutiny. Corrections run daily. If an intent to deceive or deny is established, however, the writer is usually lucky to land a job ghost copyediting the online edition of the Las Vegas Weekly News religion section.
If you ever do mange redemption -- or become a powerful political leader -- your transgressions will still be a part of your eternal biography
As an editor, let your head be a cynical, mistrusting, heartless sifter of fact. But keep your real heart open for teaching and redemption when merited.
Here is another case of media redemption: The recent case of the multiple Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sari Horwitz.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-post-suspends-reporter-for-plagiarizing-stories-on-tucson-shooting/2011/03/16/ABzKfHh_story.html