If he didn’t uncover anything new, how is it “well-researched”? If “it’s unfortunate that people sling dirt around, but it’s part and parcel of being a public figure these days,” then why is this such a “commendable” piece?
Anyway, maybe this is beyond the scope of this forum. Carry on.
There’s a piece on the homepage that refers to Cecil as ‘the world’s greatest reference librarian.’ I think that’s about right and maybe answers your question. But yes, you’re real issue here seems to be outside this forum. Don’t shoot the messenger.
I agree with this post. Regarding my questions on fraud and plagarism, all the grandstanding about how bad it is is not necessary. If I ever catch a future student of mine doing it, I’ll take them to the woodshed. HOWEVER, we need to face up to the fact that a lot of phd programs in the country are VERY shoddy. Don’t know about BU divinity school back then, but I’ve seen dissertations that I wouldn’t have let pass as a seminar paper, much less qualify somebody for the final step in a PhD. It’s even worse with some MA programs. (Many of which are largely money making rackets for schools.) Thus, my point is: it was wrong to do what Cecil says MLK did on his dissertation, but if it was standard practice amongst the students/faculty there to be weak on this front (for part of the thesis, not all), I can see how a young man would do it. It doesn’t make him a fraud for life in my book.
I think that the question this raises is, should there be a Martin Luther King day? Why not change it to Human Rights Day? Sure, we can say how great he was, but doesn’t this article from Cecil underline why the movement is greater than the man?
That’s an interesting question - some of the sites in question pose it as well. I say keep it. If we can celebrate the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, etc. - heck, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee get holidays in much of the South - we can do the same with King. Despite his flaws, the civil rights movement owes much of its success to him.
I’m sorry, but that is crap. If anybody should know that plagiarism in your dissertation is wrong, it is a Divinity student. There is no excuse whatsoever for that behavior. See my previous post. It is wrong, it was wrong, and it will continue to be wrong. Your dissertation is supposed to be a piece of original work. That is why the degree means something - it shows that you can do original research in your field. Classroom performance is immaterial once you get to that point. In fact, most Ph. D. students take very few classes; they are much more likely to attend seminars. If you can’t be trusted to do your own thesis, you can’t be trusted working in your field.
While my dad was working on his Ph. D. (mycology), a woman was caught working on another student’s thesis in addtion to her own. Both students were thrown out. This would have been in the early 60’s. Just recently, a promising physicist lost his job because he was making up data. If he had been caught copying data, he would still have lost his job and his reputation.
Rant aside, King’s hypocrisy and fraudelent behavior is surely “better” than say, owning slaves. Washington, the only figure in history I know who turned down the opportunity to be dictator, did emancipate his, to his credit. Jefferson was a tremendously talented man, who held great respect for Native Americans, but he clearly was a hypocrite of the first order. Still, both men were instrumental in the founding of the country. Columbus was largely responsible for what was arguably the most momentous event in the last 1000 years. He also committed genocide and was put to death.
I think we should grow up and acknowledge that people who accomplish great things are often greatly flawed. Sometimes that flaw might even have been essential to their accomplishments. I think we should scrap President’s Day, MLK Day, and Columbus Day, and create a new “People who were really important to the US Day”, and have some offiicial process for getting on the list. (Why isn’t John Adams on the list. He was in the same league, and with relatively few flaws.) I’d leave Lincoln his own day, because he is such a singular individual.
“The only figure in history I know who turned down the opportunity to be dictator”
Well, I hope you aren’t a history major…
Regarding your rants on unethical academic conduct, you’re preaching to the choir, but you don’t get the fine point.
Columbus started events that lead to enslavement, etc. and he was a cruel man, but I don’t think he waged genocidal wars of any kind himself. Maybe he advocated it against native, I dunno, but come’on folks, let’s get a grip…
SlowMindThinking writes:
> Washington, the only figure in history I know who turned down
> the opportunity to be dictator, did emancipate his, to his credit.
Just to name the most obvious case, there was Cincinnatus in ancient Rome, who was appointed dictator for six months. He defeated the army that was besieging Rome and then immediately quit and went back to his farm.
> He [Columbus] also committed genocide and was put to death.
No, he wasn’t put to death. He died a natural death. Do you do any research before you post?
No, I’m not a history major, but
Cincinnatus took the job of dictator, which was actually a position in dire emergencies within the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic eventually morphed into the Principate when the military leaders “escaped” from the civilian control. (Even under the Principate, the Roman empire maintained the trappings of its republican government.) Comparing Washington to Sulla is more apt.
Yes Columbus comitted genocide. Just google Columbus and genocide and you’ll find quotes like:
This is from that noted bastion of liberal rants, MIT:http://www.mit.edu/activities/thistle/v9/9.11/1columbus.html
Or this quote
Even granted that the unintentional transmission of diseases may well have wiped out 90% of the native population in the Americas in a generation, and by extension on Haiti, that still leaves Columbus as the leader of a genocidal rule.
I was sloppy in saying that Cincinnatus turned down the chance to be a dictator. What happened was more like him taking the job of dictator in an emergency and then gaving it up promptly when the emergency was over. You were equally sloppy when you claimed that Washington turned down the chance to be a dictator, SlowMindThinking. What happened, apparently, was more like him turning down the chance to be a constitutional monarch. But I’m not sure even that really happened. Is there an expert in American history here who can tell us exactly what Washington was offered? Was there really a formal offer of a kingship to Washington, or was there just some discussion of making Washington the king that never really came to anything except just some of his friends trying to persuade other people of the idea?
Which is no more remarkable than Reagan, or GHW Bush, or Clinton, stepping down at the ends of their presidencies. It’s not that he gave up the job because the emergency was over; it’s that the position of Dictator, under Roman law, was limited to a six-month term. Even if the emergency weren’t over, he’d still have to step down, and presumably another dictator would be appointed. The Latin term closest to our modern sense of “dictator” is probably “rex”, usually translated as “king”.
Well, it is pretty much tangential to the OP, but the best I could find is from here: http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taend99g.htm
It contains the following excerpt:
I think it is important to remember that even if some form of dictatorship had not been offered to him, he might well have been able to take it, because of the loyalty of his troops. Most “president’s for life” weren’t exactly offered the job, after all.
Chronos, our interests are so similar, that I’m starting to wonder if we aren’t related somehow. I thought I remembered a 6 month term, but I wasn’t going to post something based on a 20+ year old :eek: memory of one lecture.