Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Just Words II

I?ve discussed the plagiarism charge against Obama before, but, unlike nearly all commentators major and minor, I?d like to return to it.

I?m surprised, I confess, that the charge didn?t have more bite. Not that his offense was so horrible ? indeed, in the aftermath of the charge numerous examples of Hillary and others doing something similar surfaced ? but both Obama and his media acolytes had made such a big deal out of his speechifying, etc., that pointing out that in one of his best neither the idea, the words, nor their arrangement were his would have been regarded, I thought, in much the same way as a ?family values? conservative being caught with his pants down with another man.

In short, I think this is one more example of Obama being given a pass for committing an offense that would have earned others a strong, tut-tutting reprimand, or worse. Take a look (or another look, since I assume most of you have seen/heard this), at the following exchange when Hillary, in the recent Texas debate, hit him with this:

Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That?s, I think, a very simple proposition. (Applause.) And you know -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else?s speeches is not change you can believe in; it?s change you can Xerox.

This, as I?ve indicated, strikes me as a quite reasonable point, but it earned her jeers from the audience and from the pundits.

Now look again at Obama?s response:

Deval [Patrick] is a national co-chairman of my campaign and suggested an argument that I share, that words are important, words matter, and the implication that they don?t, I think, diminishes how important it is to speak to the American people directly about making America as good as its promise....

Now, the notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who?s one of my national co-chairs -- (laughter) -- who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly. (Cheers, applause.)

But is it really so ?silly?? I don?t think so. If what has put so much air (hot air?) under Obama?s wings is his ability to turn a phrase, shouldn?t all of the phrases at least be his?

At first, as I noted in my earlier post, Obama said he didn?t think using Deval Patrick?s words and phrasing was ?too big a deal.? Really? Well, let?s take a look at how the institutions with which Obama has been identified define plagiarism. First, from a course handout at Columbia, where Obama was an undergraduate:

Here is an excerpt from Columbia?s official statement on plagiarism: In making clear Columbia?s policy on plagiarism, it is not feasible to include here all the various forms ? they are innumerable ? which plagiarism might take. It is useful, however, to list several obvious varieties in order to dispel confusion about what the College will not tolerate:

1. Submitting of essays, or portions of essays, written by other people as one?s own.

2. Failing to acknowledge, through proper footnotes and bibliographical entries, the source of ideas essentially not one?s own.

3. Failing to indicate paraphrases or ideas or verbatim expressions not one?s own through proper use of quotation and footnotes....

And now from the Harvard Law School Handbook of Academic Policies:

All work submitted by a student for any academic or non-academic exercise is expected to be the student?s own work. In the preparation of their work, students should always take great care to distinguish their own ideas and knowledge from information derived from sources. The term ?sources? includes not only published or computer-accessed primary and secondary material, but also information and opinions gained directly from other people. [Emphasis added]

And finally, from the law student handbook of the University of Chicago, where Obama was a law professor:

We take plagiarism very seriously ? it may result in long-term suspensions or expulsion.

For those professors or students in doubt, plagiarism is defined in the University of Chicago Student Manual:

It is contrary to justice, to academic integrity, and to the spirit of intellectual inquiry to submit the statements or ideas of work of others as one?s own. To do so is plagiarism or cheating, offenses punishable under the University?s disciplinary system. Because these offenses undercut the distinctive moral andintellectual character of the University, we take them very seriously.

Proper acknowledgment of another?s ideas, whether by direct quotation or paraphrase, is expected....

So, Columbia and Harvard Law graduate and University of Chicago professor does not think that using not only the words and phrasing but organization of another?s speech is ?too big a deal?? Does he think all these institutions made ?too big a deal? out of the sort of borrowing he engaged in? That such wholesale borrowing is not plagiarism but something else? In short, is the former law review editor, law professor, and connoisseur of words denying that taking the idea, words, phrasing, and organization of someone else is plagiarism, or denying that plagiarism is a big deal when engaged in by a presidential candidate?

Let us imagine Professor Obama still in his Chicago law school classroom, perhaps listening to a student?s moot court argument. Recognizing an entire long riff as something he?d heard from another student, Professor Obama confronts the student, who replies, ?Oh, Professor, that?s not plagiarism. That other student is my roommate. We studied together, and he suggested I use the same argument he did.?

How would you grade the student? How would you grade the professor who said, ?Right. Not too big a deal??

Full post as published by Discriminations on February 27, 2008 (boomark / email).