Martin Luther King, Jr. was guilty of plagiarism, not failing in one way, but continually, habitually, flagrantly. This argument does not make the case. But the issue is this meaning, how the King affects our estimation and the work of his life.
Plagiarism of the King
King was admitted to Morehouse College, an all-black college in Atlanta, at the age of 15. At first glance, this seems to indicate that the student was an ordinary student, but there may have been an element of that. , his role was also pushed by ambitious parents and by the fact that Morehouse had relaxed its requirements for the early admissions program due to so many of its students leaving for the military. /e-info.vn/tag/world-war-ii”>World War II.
At Morehouse, King was an average student. Some of the professors noted the carelessness in the writing, but quite comfortably. An after-examination of his work at Morehouse shows that there are only milder cases bordering on plagiarism than the obvious examples he showed later in his academic career.
After Morehouse, King attended Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, from which he received a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1951, and Boston University, from which he received his Ph.D. in Theology in 1955.
In these two latter institutions the king’s plagiarism became more serious. In these research by paper, King would write verbatim the passages he considered most important on the papers. Then when it was time to write the paper, he would arrange these papers in tentative order and write the paper from them.
In some of his notebooks, he used his notes, as the student wanted to do. He prepared his ideas in his own words, and mixed them with his copious ideas not written in manuscript. There were not many allegations, and what they were properly known as such and cited.
In other papers, he changed very little of the wording of the papers, if at all he added little of his material, he did not recognize most of his quotations, and he did not acknowledge his source. In most cases, as much as 75 percent of King’s papers do not give the allegations, they are falsely presented as his own words.
King’s Ph.D. the dissertation itself is substantially joined in this way. His book Stride To Freedom, published in 1958, first of all heavily edited and fantastic, has some examples of material carefully listed in other books without attribution, although it is not so clearly cut. The most serious examples of plagiarism are the worst cases from academic courses.
The sermons and speeches of the king were often examined as renewals of earlier works and speeches. For example, his famous “Have a Dream” speech of 1963 repeats many phrases that he had used in his speeches over the years, and passages that resonate closely with elements of Archibald Carey’s 1952 Jr. speech. Republican National Convention.
Why did the king plagiarize?
Why would any student plagiarize? They get hurt because there is something they want, a certain grade, a certain grade, the approval of their parents, to stay on track for a certain course, etc. There is nothing moral about them that prevents them from bending or breaking the rules.
For the King especially appears to have been at the head of it at Crozer’s and at the University of Boston. King did not have the greatest flight of academic mind. He is not a fool; this means that it is not one of the tiny fraction of people who are talented and otherwise fit for graduate work with heavy training. While he probably could have made it through most if not all of his undergraduate programs without any deception, he didn’t excel, and he certainly didn’t do a Ph.D. level work
College and especially graduate grade writing is supposed to show two main things, mastery of existing material and the ability to paraphrase. that in your words, more ability to that existing material with original thought, which in effect can take the doctoral dialogue forward. The king had some ability in both, but not consistently enough in all the provinces. Sometimes, in the lower and in the higher growing, he falls back using the voices of others.
King had no intention of pursuing an academic career at all. He was a clergyman, he wanted to fight for the rights of his people, and he wanted to stand up and express his ideas in order to gain some degree of respect and favor in the white world. He was not destined to spend his life in libraries publishing obscure academic journals.
When he had really taken an interest in it, he pursued it with great zeal. For example, after an open rumor about Gandhi inspired him, he bought several books and read them avidly to better understand the Indian leader’s spiritual, moral, and political ideas and how they fit with his own. This is not some lazy or stupid student who just wants to cheat his way through school. But when he did not commit to something, or did not trust his talent, he cut short.
Most of his sojourn in the academy was temporary, which came to an end, and he did what he could do successfully. Like many students—unfortunately, it was probably the majority—he did not keep the rules, since staying away from them would have been too uncomfortable.
The fact that mild versions of plagiarism were removed at first helped to explain why he continued to do it, and indeed he took more serious cases of plagiarizing later on.
It turned out to be a plagiarism so blatant that it didn’t even come to light until well after he was dead. This is followed by two speculative points for the commentators.
Some say that the way of plagiarism is that he does not try to be subtle or insidious about it, and that he never made any negative opinion, they show that he does not see what he is doing to plagiarize or what he is doing wrong. Others say that they are liberal white professionals who will not hesitate to scrutinize their patronage or hold it to normal standards because they want African American man to succeed him. There may be some truth in both, but neither is more than half true.
As for the first, I’m sure some students don’t really understand the concept of plagiarism, and they think that if they’re looking for a certain piece of information or a certain type of paper, then they’re working to find that stuff. to copy from an honest source, thus giving the professor what was requested, then you did what you were supposed to do. Either they don’t know that they are quoting their sources somehow, or they think so. a fairly trivial stylistic preference of some professors such as numbering pages in a certain way or using single or double spaces, and that great task is not to be omitted if it is too troublesome.
But this is more characteristic of a novice. Maybe some institutions have been different in some historical periods, but it is desirable to have a student who goes higher in college and certainly someone in Graduate school He noticed plagiarism to the extent that Rex did by outright cheating in some of his papers. It is not credible that the king did not know what the plagiarizer was doing, or that he did not know that plagiarism was wrong, although it is certainly possible that he saw a violation in a very minor matter, the most common way that students committed. At first he was encouraged to think on this account by the lack of response from the professors.
As for the second, Professors are too human and not very remote to have one of the biases in such a case, so that it would be a little easy in a student like Rex – very emotional, articulate, warm. who is common in the liberal theological faith, and of the oppressed race, who far surpasses the greater part of his fellow-disciples.
On the other hand, some noted that among the few other Americans among the few other Africans who established these institutions in this history attended periods, there were those who failed low grades, some failed and left, some who were disciplined for academic violations, etc. But all they decide is that there was no such thing as an absolute study that guarantees one hundred percent African a> Students will succeed for what they do. It is not clear that there was no lesser degree of interest, that some people could have been motivated consciously or unconsciously by some tacit “affirmative action” in the assessment of the King’s work.
Does it matter that the king plagiarized?
Unfortunately, this is one of those things that is difficult to address unemotionally. Many liberals, African Americans, and others who are emotionally invested in King want the heroic figure to deny that he is guilty. of plagiarism, or to obscure its importance. On the other hand, many conservatives, racists, and others are passionately invested in detesting King, and all who stand for the plagiarism of revelations look with glee and treat it as evidence that he is a fraud.
As someone who spends a fair amount of time in academia and who takes his grades seriously, I’m more inclined to react fairly strongly to plagiarism. At the same time, I also recognize that in terms of the sins committed by men, men are held up as American heroes, men are called a holiday by them, men are held up as role models, etc.
In the narrow confines of the academy itself, if anything, the king’s plagiarism has been dealt with. Boston University considered revoking his Ph.D., but ultimately decided on a compromise where the degree would stand, and a note was attached to the dissertation explaining that parts of it had been taken from elsewhere without proper attribution. You can make a pretty good case that plagiarism is a serious enough academic offense to warrant the more serious academic penalty of revoking a doctorate.
But in the wider context of society, of history, does King’s plagiarism condemn us as a man, receive our admiration, recall the wisdom of organizing holidays in his name, etc.? No one or himself, except some, very small ones.
His behavior revealed his weakness. A very common defect. It’s not nearly as significant as what many other “great” Americans have done, owning people, engaging in genocidal wars against . indigenous people, or even the dishonesty of routines and deceptions that noble people do to make it in the most financially and politically imperfect world, where “they consume the last beautiful guys.
It shows that the king is not perfect. There is nothing more mildly misleading than your inclination towards hero-worship requires unequivocal purity in those who wear the base. God of goodness, with plagiarism, and other vices for that matter, he made lances with all good things, so that he was often oppressed by his strength, intelligence, love, and integrity of things in the most important things. people, things are coming out pretty strong.
As for “non-academic plagiarism,” that seems to me to be a still more questionable criticism. Of course, speeches and sermons use different ideas that others have expressed in different times and places. That king, by the example of this speech, or a phrase of some speech from his person, is quite light. Perhaps sometimes he could have changed his material a little, so as to make it his own, or to mention expressly that he was thus inspired, and to a certain point, but for the most part it was the king’s sermons and speeches. proper Although some words were not, the combination of words and manner delivered them.
Finally, and above all, although the question of plagiarism affects the king’s view of himself as an individual and his behavior, there is no justification for the fact that it leads to his thoughts and actions. Preferment without proper citation is quite a minor, but not entirely light misdemeanor, but even if the king did something worthy of a worse crime, surely that would not in any way invalidate the movement of civil rights.
The vices of the King make it OK that legal and illegal tools up to torture and murder have been used for decades to all intents and purposes no African Americans Did the Meridians vote? Do they make it fit that people of a certain skin color can’t use public restrooms, or ride anywhere except in the opposite direction? Do they justify failing to enforce the Constitution when it was inappropriate for the white power structure? Are they undermining the choice to use peaceful civil disobedience to pursue civil rights, oppose violence, or simply acquiesce in injustice? Do they justify a society in which such factors of race and economic deprivation are causing thousands of children to perish to an almost miserable life in a land of plenty?
They answer such questions.
Sources:
Clayborn Carson, “Editing Martin Luther King, Jr.: Political and Scholarly Issues.” The Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ralph E. Luker, “On Martin Luther King’s Plagiarism…” History News Network.
“Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King.” New York Times.
“Four Things About the King.” Snopes.
