On the one hand, I feel that Cecil’s “Was Martin Luther King Jr. A Plagiarist?” (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030502.html) article was rather more hard on King then may have been justified. I lack expertise on the subject, though, so I will accept the words of the Perfect Master, if not as truth, then as a legitimate set of views, backed by evidence.
More important - welcome back, Cecil! This is the sort of article we love you for - controversial, interesting, non-trivial. Thank you, oh almighty one!
That’s much what I was thinking. Was he too harsh on King? I don’t know. He addressed the accusations, and the amount of truth in them would make anybody look bad.
But I know people like to complain that recent columns haven’t been up to snuff, and this one sure can’t be accused of that. It’s interesting, it’s weighty, and it strikes me as being as controversial as anything I’ve read. As a journalist, I’m happy - not because I have it in for MLK or something, I was disappointed that many of these things were true - but I think this is some very interesting and honest writing. Congrats, Cecil, and thanks!
I thought that the article was as sensitive as it could be, considering the subject matter. I think it was a really great job - no sensationalism, just the facts.
Wow, that article was a real downer for me - King is one of my role models. But I guess all I knew about him I learned from places like the Civil Rights Museum. It’s hard to find good heroes these days, I guess.
I agree, cheers Cecil, this is the kind of stuff I got hooked on in the first place. Thanks man.
As far as the MLK stuff, how much does it really matter if he was a slightly pinko plageristic sex machine? I know that there is this odd urge in American culture to deify revered public figures, but does not his impact outweigh any character flaws that he may have possessed, because that’s all they are is flaws. So he’s a little more human than godly. I personally like my public figures with a little humanity on their faces.
Most people would agree (Cecil included) that in spite of these personal failings he did an awful lot of good. The more damning charges are the “chauvinist and often exploitative” treatment of women are very off kilter for a civil rights activist and plagiarism, in the context given, is really bad for anybody (I would think in most cases this would result in the institution rescinding the degree for which the work was done).
Ditto. It’s not that it’s hard to find heroes “these days” because people are worse than they used to be. We just get a more complete idea of who famous people are. Perhaps eventually we’ll grasp that nobody is perfect and learn to separate great ideas from flawed people. I don’t think King’s personal failings and hypocrisies (THAT is what’s the most disappointing) can overshadow the progress made by a movement he did so much to found and lead.
Now, it had been my impression that MLK’s first foray into being a promising young black leader came with his involvement with Rosa Parks and his organization of the Montgomery bus boycott. Since that didn’t happen until 1955, it seems difficult to suppose that the first reader of his dissertation in 1951, and his contemporaneous faculty advisers, would have viewed him as a “promising young black leader.”
So, my further questions are: When did MLK, Jr. emerge as a promising young black leader?
Did MLK, Jr. actually organize the Montgomery bus boycott?
Was Cecil’s characterization in the quoted passage simply Cecilian banter?
I guess one of the hallmarks of true ignorance-fighting is that it inspires further investigation.
Not only did he discover that MLK’s faculty advisers were white, not only did he determine that they were liberal, but he discovered that every single one of them was a guilty white liberal.
I completely agree, and that’s exactly what I had in mind when I said that earlier. I’m thinking it’s probably better to look up to heroic feats or heroic ideas than heroic people, because people are after all people. And that’s fine. Still, I think everyone likes to think that there are people that it would be great to be just like, and it’s hard to divorce myself from that idea.
I’m not sure that the words “fraud and hypocrit” are fair based on the evidence. Plagirism in grad school on a large scale by a young man is bad, but does it make you a fraud for life? Plagirism of speeches is an easy thing to accuse on of, not the same thing as writting essays, etc. Can somebody point me to what the original source of I Have a Dream is? or other major writings? I certainly hope having speachwriters or even ghost writers does not make you a fraud.
For hypocrite, I guess being a skirt-chasing minister is enough to get that award, assuming he preached the sort of monogamy you except he would for that era. But since he is famous for civil rights leadership and not abstinence only public education campaigns, it seems a bit misleading in such a short piece.
He didn’t just plagiarize one paper in grad school - and it wasn’t just a paper, it was his doctoral thesis. King died young, but you can’t excuse doing that because he was young. He got his doctorate in 1955, he would’ve been 26, that’s old enough to know you’re not supposed to do that.
And the comment isn’t based on one paper. Cecil comments that the “I Have a Dream” speech was somewhat plagiarized as well, and says there were other writings without mentioning names. (Speech and ghostwriters are credited, that’s not fraudulent. Using someone else’s work and claiming it as your own is plagiarism.)
I think in this situation there’s some overlap between fraud and hypocrite. A man who plagiarizes a doctoral thesis can be accurately called a fraud in my opinion.
This may be a meaningless comment coming from an atheist, but a man of god who cheats on his wife and (this is at least suggested) abuses women - especially while fighting for Civil Rights - is a hypocrite. Sorry.
As I said earlier, a glance at a biography says that King was awarded his doctorate in 1955. The bus boycott was in December, which I’m guessing was after the degree. But that was what brought King national attention. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t promising. This website www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html shows that he had made some noteworthy achievements before that, including President of his class at Crozer and a place on the executive board of the NAACP. Cecil’s comment about guilty white liberals was probably glib, but maybe you see what he was getting at.
Now, how did you come to the conclusion that “some” means “Cecil,” “wonder whether” means “believe,” and “incompetent or just guilty white liberals” means “just guilty while liberals?”
loopus: oh, come on…as if vauge writing allows you to get off the hook…jeez…in a short column if you are going to repeat the accusation (regarding advisers) without exploring it, you can’t had behind empty journalism like “some to wonder”…
regarding marley…just saying he plagarized speeches isn’t really clear…from where? how much? how often? it’s my experience in politics that sometimes taking a phrase or idea from another in a stump speach (as oppsed to an essay) is usually not frowned upon by the pros, although some journalists and your enemies will try to make hey out of it…sometimes it flies sometimes it doesn’t…i’ll give MLK a pass on the speeches until I see more on the amount and depth of it…Cecil offered neither. also, you make the same point I do on hypoc. so I don’t see why you say “sorry” as if a corrective…
I have a Ph. D. If it were found that I had plagerized my thesis, my degree would be revoked, rescinded, taken back, whatever, and, even though I am not in academia, I would probably lose my job, and perhaps my security clearance. So, yes, it does make you a fraud for life. It is not quite the same thing as copying someone’s homework.
That is as weak an admission of hypocrisy as is possible to make. Clearly he was more than a mere “skirt-chasing minsiter”, and even in this era, ministers preach “the sort of monogamy you except he would for that era”. It doesn’t make him as big a hypocrite as the slave-owning, all-men-endowed-with-liberty Jefferson, but …
It was the 60’s, Kennedy was boffing his harem and King was boffing his ladies. The chances that King would ever get caught for plagarism or fooling around, in the context of the times, probably seemed pretty small to him and he took a chance.
That group orgy stuff is a stunner though. It was a tragedy he got killed as he still had a lot to offer, but in retrospect if he did live his overall historical image might have taken a much larger beating if this stuff came out while he was still alive.
I don’t know, and I’d like to find out just as much as you would. Based on the wording Cecil used, I expect I won’t like what I hear.
While working off of or borrowing an idea is perfectly normal in speeches - it’s part of debate - that’s also not the same as plagiarism. Usually if you respond to someone else’s idea, you mention them and you’re fine. The issue with plagiarism, like I said earlier, is taking credit for someone else’s work or ideas, which isn’t exactly the same. Seeing the speeches and/or passages in question would do better to resolve this, and perhaps we can ask Cecil or the staff for the relevant links and info.