Ill-Gotten Gains

The story of Senator John Walsh (D) of Montana's plagiarism surfaced yesterday in a comprehensive article by the New York Times found here. The senator and decorated military veteran, who was appointed to replace someone else as senator in February of this year, seems to have received many of his recent achievements in part due to the Master's degree he "earned" from the United States Army War College in 2007. It's now been revealed that Walsh plagiarized nearly half of the final paper he wrote for completion of the degree, both by "forgetting" to quote cited sources and by wholesale copying of chunks of other documents without attribution. In a further development after the story broke yesterday, Walsh commented, claiming, according to the San Jose Mercury News, that "when he wrote the thesis, he had post-traumatic stress disorder from his service in Iraq, was on medication and was dealing with the stress of a fellow veteran's recent suicide." He explained that the "place" his "head" was in was not "conducive to a classroom."

Where should I begin?

The PTSD explanation seems like a flimsy excuse for stupid behavior, which demeans both the disorder and the classroom. Why would a man whose "head" was not ready for an "academic setting" choose to pursue a Master's degree? Walsh seems to say that plagiarizing an academic paper is something different, less serious, from other kinds of cheating and ethical missteps, apparently arguing that the so-called "academic setting" is different from real life and thus subject to different rules. And indeed, the repercussions for stealing someone's intellectual property are generally much less severe than those for theft of physical property that has more obvious monetary value. I don't want to begin a digression on academia, but I do want to point out that during and shortly after the time in question, Walsh seems to have been wildly successful in all other aspects of his life, becoming adjutant general of the Montana National Guard, lieutenant governor, and then U.S. senator in quick succession. In fact, much of this success seems to have led directly from the 2007 Army War College degree, which at least played a factor in his appointment to adjutant general of the National Guard. Were academics the only thing Walsh's PTSD negatively affected? Snarky comments aside, I fear that Walsh is making light of the importance of intellectual thought while he exploits a serious and complicated disorder. I don't question that Walsh had post-traumatic stress, but I also wouldn't accept that excuse for plagiarism in my own classroom, in much the same way as a security guard wouldn't accept a shoplifter's diagnosis of kleptomania and send him on his way, stolen goods in hand. Because really, what we are talking about here are stolen goods--the goods reaped from the seeds of intellectual theft, at any rate.

I'm curious to see what happens next. I've seen only minor wrist-slaps (if that) to other plagiarists (Fareed Zakaria, anyone?) and expect about the same here, though the U.S. Army War College may attempt some reprimand that at least sets an example to future students. I'm not sure how likely it was for a Democratic senator to get reelected in Montana anyway, so perhaps that ship sailed before this scandal.

Fake Intolerance and Viral Giving

A week or two ago, a story surfaced about a young child who was asked to leave a KFC because her scars from being mauled by dogs were bothering other patrons of the restaurant. An outpouring of support for the little girl and scorn for the restaurant employees soon followed; thousands of dollars and offers of free reconstructive surgery were offered to the family of the child, and KFCs were boycotted and their employees assaulted by beverages in drive thrus. KFC even offered $30,000 for medical costs.

Today, this article appeared explaining that the whole situation (except for the girl being scarred by a dog mauling) was fabricated by the girl's grandmother; no one asked the family to leave, and in fact the family was not even in a KFC on the day in question. What will be done now is unclear, but so many interesting/disturbing questions are raised by this particular "hoax," as the article terms it. The motivations for lying are fairly clear based on the facts: the grandmother's gofundme.com page had $600 before the "hoax" and managed to raise over $100,000 afterward. What is not certain is why the grandmother resorted to lying and false accusations rather than some more benign method to raise funds needed for her granddaughter's recovery. Innocent people were adversely affected by these lies even while one poor little girl was about to receive necessary care.

Do we respond more strongly to stories of injustice than other sob stories, and if so, why was facial disfigurement of a three-year-old not itself enough for us to open our pockets? Further, why is generosity not enough in these cases--why are people also tempted to retaliate, often ignorantly and indiscriminately, and sometimes violently, against those perceived as unjust? Is intolerance alleviated or simply perpetuated by a person like this grandmother who has fabricated intolerance and animosity where they likely did not exist before? What facts (or fictions) give us reason to be (or not be) generous?