Letters to the Editor
-
words do matter, especially when they're someone else's
"The HRC camp is trying to hit Obama on false claims of plagiarism after he used some lines from a Deval Patrick speech--at the urging of Patrick himself."
You are confused about what constitutes plagiarism. It doesn't matter that Deval Patrick gave Obama permission to use his speech. Obama passed Patrick's spech off *as Obama's own words.* The *audience* thought they were hearing Obama speak. They weren't. *That* is the deception.
I'll give you a real-life example. I teach at a univerisy. I recently received a paper from a student that she clearly hadn't written (a review of an event I knew she hadn't attended). When I asked her to explain, she said she thought I wanted her to write the paper "as if" she'd been there (I clearly didn't, but that's another story), so she "interviewed classmates to get their impressions" of the event and stitched them together to make her paper. She added, "They all said it was ok" to use their words, and, of course, she didn't credit them in her work. I refused to credit the paper(obviously!), and I reported her to the Dean of Students for academic dishonesty. Her actions constituted plagiarism.
Now back to Obama.
I know every candidate has speechwriters. So no speech is 100% the candidate's own words. But. The Obama Brand emphasizes his oratory gifts, the power of *his* words to unite people for change. The Deval Patrick speech was crafted for a different man, a different occasion, and a different context. This lifting of Patrick's speech is not only intellectually dishonest, even if Patrick sanctioned it, it can call into question the credibility of Obama the Brand.
And it was a "Freshman Comp" type error. A simple "I'd like to repeat some words my friend Patrick Duval once said, becaue they ring true today ..." would have made it all right.