Depending upon their politics, readers will either welcome "Plagiarism and the Culture War" as a long overdue expose of the academy's moral underbelly, or find it an unnecessary rubbing of salt in old wounds.
In truth, Theodore Pappas' book offers a little of each.
The managing editor of Chronicles, a magazine published by the Rockford Institute, a conservative think tank, Pappas was one of the first American journalists to report a sad chapter in the history of the civil rights movement. In 1990, rumors went around the professorial cocktail party circuit that scholars preparing an edition of Martin Luther King Jr.'s papers had come across disturbing instances of plagiarism. Pappas got hold of King's doctoral thesis in theology and that of a certain Jack Boozer, who had preceded King as a graduate student Deca Durabolin C'Est Quoi at Boston University, laid them side by side and discovered that, indeed, King had cribbed whole sections.
After publishing his findings in Chronicles, Pappas made an equally unsettling discovery: A number of major newspapers, including The New York Times and Washington Post, had gotten wind of the possibility "Anaboliset Aineet" of plagiarism but hadn't shared it with readers. The National Endowment for the Humanities, which was funding the publication of King's papers, also had known about the plagiarism. In fact, Gensci Jintropin the allegations had been reported a year earlier in an English newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph. Yet until The Wall Street Journal put the story on its front page in November 1990, the American public had no idea that King's legacy could be compromised by scandal.
"The King plagiarism story was suppressed for one simple reason: fear fear of the massive retaliation that would be visited upon anyone who attempted to set the historical record straight," Pappas writes.
The affair got even bleaker after the history of King's thesis became publicly known. Plagiarism has long been the ivory tower's equivalent of high crimes and misdemeanors. Scholarship is, by its very nature, a co operative venture, with one generation of researchers building upon the work of its predecessors and crediting them accordingly. That is why footnotes were invented. Violators of those ground rules traditionally have been subject to summary exclusion from the "Anabolika Definition" polite Anavar E Espinhas academic world of faculty clubs and scholarly journals.
In King's case, though, respected academics were willing to give him much more than the benefit of the doubt.
In The Chronicle of Higher Education, the academy's trade paper, one of King's defenders noted that King had grown up in the sermonizing tradition of the black church, where one pulpit orator echoes another, arguing that it thus never dawned on King that "voice merging" wasn't an appropriate approach to scholarship. In plain English: Because there aren't footnotes in oral expression, it's OK to pass off another's work as your own in written form.
A committee appointed by Boston University to investigate the affair reported that because King's filching amounted to " only' 4-chlorodehydromethyltestosterone one third" of his dissertation, it wasn't necessary for the school to reconsider the doctoral degree it had granted him.
Pappas notes that such ethical word games were made easier because the academy has been passing through a cultural revolution, so that truth no longer seems an unchallengeable standard to some younger, hipper and especially, liberal professors. Under the impress of the theory of deconstruction, the whole idea Anadrol Shortness Of Breath of an objective standard has been made to seem old hat. And once truth goes, what is wrong with lifting a few paragraphs, pages, even chapters, from a colleague?
"Contrary to what conservatives and traditionalists had predicted, postmodernism and deconstructionism did not Buy Viagra Berlin remain mere parlor games of Susan Sontag and of the desk bound class but rather spread in the guise of their nefarious offspring multiculturalism, cultural relativism, political correctness," Pappas writes.
True enough. We are indebted to Pappas for reminding us that if we don't hold our heroes to tough standards, we can't use those same standards to criticize our opponents.
Yet Pappas' sensitivity to the contemporary professorate's manifest sins does, at times, reach a Cold War level of finding communists under every bed. For instance, he faults Garry Wills for relegating to a footnote Wills' feeling that King's plagiarism warranted the posthumous revocation of his doctorate. Wouldn't it be fairer to applaud Wills, a well known liberal minded professor and newspaper columnist, for facing square up to a thorny problem that others on the same side of the ideological aisle were ducking?