Is That Legal?

Well that's different. I'm sure he'd accept the same excuses from one of his students. "It was an accident. I just got rushed on my assignment and accidentally forgot to explain that I was quoting people. Besides, I forget where I got the material but I don't think it was properly cited there so it's not my fault. I think I did reference my sources most of the time, but I lost my assignment so I can't prove it. And I also just forgot on the paper that I did a few days later using the same material. And the only reason so much of my speech was quotes was that I was trying to show that my thesis is widely accepted. Yeah, that's it. Well, I've really learned my lesson so how about that A?

I like that he wanted to impress upon the students that there was "nothing radically new" in what he was saying. I don't know if they got that impression at the time, but I'm sure they have now.

So he gave a speech in which he appropriated large portions of someone else's speech without giving any credit. How is that not plagiarism? I guess we're supposed to forgive him because he "just began as dean" and he "scrambled" to finish. What a pathetic response.

Perhaps Bryan Le Beau should have remembered these Morrissey lyrics:

"If you must write prose or poems/
The words you use should be your own/
Don't plagiarise or take "on loan"/
'Cause there's always someone, somewhere/
With a big nose, who knows/
And who trips you up and laughs/
When you fall."

Eric,

Haven't you heard that excuse regarding intent to deceive in the various mail & wire fraud cases you were involved with at the U.S. Attorney's Office? I'm sure you recall how well accepted that position was in a case.

So he says may have mentioned Cornel West's name in the actual speech but doesn't have his notes of his final version anymore? Does anyone believe that? I bet there is somebody that videotaped this speech out there somewhere. The real truth is he didn't know this was on the internet, and never intended it to be there, so he never expected to get caught.

The thing that sticks out for me is not only the plagiarism, but the fact that when he fiddles with Baker's words, he shows he's an incompetent writer. He took a light, wry, concise and elegant little passage and made it thick, plodding, pompous, clumsy, and obvious. I'll be Baker would be less disturbed by the plagiarism -- it's something of a compliment to a writer after all, even if it is a basic violation of scholarship -- than by the butchering his words endured at the hands of the dean.

I think Le Beau is a better writer than Baker. This is one example that although some people like Baker's writing style, others prefer Le Beau's. For a speech?? Le Beau has more impact, more passion, more grace. Baker's was flat and cold and uninspiring.

This whole plagiarism concept I think is a product of insecure people who are limited by their own work that they feel the need to constantly protect their ideas. Its too arrogant and presumptuous. Just because they were the ones who published it first, does not mean that they are the only ones capable of creating it. The territoriality of claiming the right to certain sentences and words are just so sickening. These concept of plagiarism limits creativity. An unsatisfactory idea must not be limited to the author alone, it is too sad. Thats why the world cannot change significantly because self-righteous people restricts it from happening. All ideas should be common knowledge. Ideas should remain free.