Followup on Michigan State University plagiarism
The Grand Rapids Press gave some specifics on what has asserted to have been plagiarized in the report by a Michigan State researcher:
A 13-page portion of Shakrani's report discussing consolidation issues was criticized Wednesday by The Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank in Midland.
It said three paragraphs matched text in the federal Educational Resources Information Center digest, while four other paragraphs matched text in a recent report on Stateline.org, a public policy website affiliated with the Pew Charitable Trust. Several sentences and sentence fragments were also challenged as coming from a 2001 study by Syracuse University.
Earlier discussion of this matter-->
Michigian State plagiarizes?
Previous discussion of the Sticklen plagiarism matter at Michigan State University-->
Plagiarism by Michigan State professor
Michigan State still has a long way to go to catch up to Harvard Law School.
**A different post included the following:
But ethics and plagiarism experts said plagiarism itself puts a study in question.
"Dishonest conduct in the form of plagiarism undermines the credibility of the author and therefore the study, even though the study might have been considered brilliant if the author had given proper attribution to its source material," said Alec Rothrock, a legal ethics lawyer in Colorado, in an email.
This point of view is, of course, distinct from that of Stanley Fish, who supports the concept of contextual plagiarism.
***As to Harvard Law, among other things, see a reminder of l'affaire Tribe:
If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can "write" your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was "inadvertent," and you can count on the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about "global warming" to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.
A 13-page portion of Shakrani's report discussing consolidation issues was criticized Wednesday by The Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank in Midland.
It said three paragraphs matched text in the federal Educational Resources Information Center digest, while four other paragraphs matched text in a recent report on Stateline.org, a public policy website affiliated with the Pew Charitable Trust. Several sentences and sentence fragments were also challenged as coming from a 2001 study by Syracuse University.
Earlier discussion of this matter-->
Michigian State plagiarizes?
Previous discussion of the Sticklen plagiarism matter at Michigan State University-->
Plagiarism by Michigan State professor
Michigan State still has a long way to go to catch up to Harvard Law School.
**A different post included the following:
But ethics and plagiarism experts said plagiarism itself puts a study in question.
"Dishonest conduct in the form of plagiarism undermines the credibility of the author and therefore the study, even though the study might have been considered brilliant if the author had given proper attribution to its source material," said Alec Rothrock, a legal ethics lawyer in Colorado, in an email.
This point of view is, of course, distinct from that of Stanley Fish, who supports the concept of contextual plagiarism.
***As to Harvard Law, among other things, see a reminder of l'affaire Tribe:
If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can "write" your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was "inadvertent," and you can count on the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about "global warming" to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home