“A Flurry of Fascination” the (Anti)Plagiarism Cases of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin
1 “A Flurry of Fascination” The (Anti)Plagiarism Cases of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin IN THE FIRST week of January 2002, a crime was committed. For some, the crime had actually taken place many months, even years, before the New York Times published the first of many reports on the topic. For others, the offense came later as scattered details coalesced and the several participants (perpetra- tors and victims alike) stated positions for the record. And yet, for many the crime never happened at all, but rather those accused had been falsely charged by an envious, resentful few. In the end, it would not be clear as to who did what, when, where, to whom, and why. Nevertheless, something did happen in early 2002, and the goal of this retelling is to consider how the many players involved managed to articulate both the nature of the crime and its relevance to education, scholarship, and American culture at large. These players would include a handful of state uni- versities, several college professors and students, one major publishing house, a slew of journalists, a few concerned citizens, three spokespersons, a staff of re- search assistants, and a series of experts prepared to wax eloquent on topics ranging from the proper use of punctuation marks to the diabolical repercus- sions of selling one’s soul. The issues at stake would be biggies: integrity, truth, honesty, discipline, courage, tradition. New and old technologies—computers, word-processing software, and the Internet, but also plain old paper, pencil, and handwriting—would factor in as evidence, and even accessories to the crime.
[Show full text]