"It’s not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words....If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation."-Harvard Honor Code
President Diversity, without quotes: "African-Americans in 'high-black-empowerment' areas-- as indicated by control of the mayor's office-- are more active than either African-Americans in low empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Empowerment, they conclude, influence black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs."
Source: "blacks in 'high-black-empowerment' areas-- as indicated by control of the mayor's office-- are more active than either blacks living in low-empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status... empowerment influence black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs."
Would you say that President Diversity's language is in her own words here?
This is the part that is quibbling about quotations or not. The source is full of terms of art that would lose their meaning if she tried to change terms like "high black empowerment areas" and "empowerment influence of black participation" into something else. And it is one fricking sentence and not whole paragraphs. This is exactly the kind of stuff the computer software flags. If academics had to follow your rules, you would get something like this:
Source:
We take the position that diversity and inclusion initiatives failed to meet the programs goals because they failed to set standards on socioeconomic status.
In your world, someone talking about this in their dissertation would have to come up with a word salad like this:
Johnson and Williams positional statement in their work conveyed their position that programs designed to bring in more people of color from broad backgrounds did not attain the stated objectives because they did not at the outset establish guiding principles on what spectrum of income and concomitant social hierarchies would be considered.
There is no reason to change terms of art like diversity and inclusion initiatives or socioeconomic status and repeating those terms of art is not plagiarism.
Maybe she can write about drive-bys as those have very high black participation!
Larry Summers was president of Harvard. No way she is not brighter than that guy
Why does the internet seem to hate Larry Summers so much? I think he's great, but not looking for an argument, just wanting to understand. Is it because he represents the more centrist elements of the blue coalition? Is it because of his role in the 2008 financial crisis? Something else?
His comments made in 2005 that the jury was still out on whether or not women can do science and math is a classic.
Did you see how we was portrayed in the Social Network? What a buffoon he was? People who were at Harvard at that time noted that the movie was a pretty accurate portrayal of Harvard except that is underplayed what a jerk Summers us.
Show me these alleged angry posts. Sure you just don't mean posts containing facts and views you don't care to see?
Here's some advice to you. If you have nothing to add to the discussion we are having here, then say nothing
Alcoholics often don’t recognize that they are alcoholics. Unfortunately, our bias blinds us from objectivity; and I’m not surprised that you don’t see your demeanor as angry and inflammatory. Seriously, please take a step back and really take a hard look at what you’re doing. It’s just not healthy.
You are in your own head and think you are making sense.
Show me these alleged angry posts. Sure you just don't mean posts containing facts and views you don't care to see?
Here's some advice to you. If you have nothing to add to the discussion we are having here, then say nothing
Alcoholics often don’t recognize that they are alcoholics. Unfortunately, our bias blinds us from objectivity; and I’m not surprised that you don’t see your demeanor as angry and inflammatory. Seriously, please take a step back and really take a hard look at what you’re doing. It’s just not healthy.
I have repeatedly asked for examples of my anti semitic and angry comments.
Bill Ackman (reknowed investor and Harvard grad) weighs in:
"Shrinking the pool of candidates based on required race, gender, and/or sexual orientation criteria is not the right approach to identifying the best leaders for our most prestigious universities. And it is also not good for those awarded the office of president who find themselves in a role that they would likely not have obtained were it not for a fat finger on the scale. I have been called brave for my tweets over the last few weeks. The same could be said for those called out Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare. I don’t think it will be long before we look back on the last few years of free speech suppression and the repeated career-ending accusations of racist for those who questioned the DEI movement. We are all shortly going to realize that the DEI era is the McCarthy era Part II. History rhymes, but it does not repeat."
First, Gay lifts an entire paragraph nearly verbatim from Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam’s paper, “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment,” while passing it off as her own paraphrase and language. Here is the original, from Bobo and Gilliam:
Using 1987 national sample survey data . . . the results show that blacks in high-black-empowerment areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either blacks living in low-empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the results show that empowerment influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation to politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
And here is the language from Gay’s work:
Using 1987 survey data, Bobo and Gilliam found that African-Americans in “high black-empowerment” areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either African-Americans in low empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Empowerment, they conclude, influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
What's a few paragraphs, big deal
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I would have liked to see this guy catch Dershowitz in plagiarism. However, what he presents in the time I watched was simply places where Dershowitz used the same quotations that another author used. That's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the exact words or ideas of another without proper citation. If one author uses a quotation and another author sees that and uses the quotation too, in each case citing the original author, that is the academic standard. One is asked by presses specifically to remove the double citation (e.g. Kant in Jameson 1973, ...) in such cases. Rarely, one will include the double but either way it is not plagiarism.
I suspect for similar reasons that Gay's thesis wasn't plagiarized either because academic works are always going to be quoting other authors and paraphrasing their words while using the identical technical terms, which is what it sounds like Gay did, according to an online article on the subject.
Your quotation from Gay would be an example of plagiarism. However, given that she is directly citing them and using a couple of quotation marks, my guess is that it was one of those cases of carelessness where she had the quotation and not the quotation marks in a few places. If extensive, clearly plagiarism. If a couple places in a long dissertation--and note that here she cites them and quotes them properly in part--she's not likely hiding anything and just made a mistake either note-taking or in the revision process. By the way, I counted about 1800 citations of her articles, not including everything.
I would have liked to see this guy catch Dershowitz in plagiarism. However, what he presents in the time I watched was simply places where Dershowitz used the same quotations that another author used. That's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the exact words or ideas of another without proper citation. If one author uses a quotation and another author sees that and uses the quotation too, in each case citing the original author, that is the academic standard. One is asked by presses specifically to remove the double citation (e.g. Kant in Jameson 1973, ...) in such cases. Rarely, one will include the double but either way it is not plagiarism.
I suspect for similar reasons that Gay's thesis wasn't plagiarized either because academic works are always going to be quoting other authors and paraphrasing their words while using the identical technical terms, which is what it sounds like Gay did, according to an online article on the subject.
He used the exact words and punctuation, even the mistakes.
I would have liked to see this guy catch Dershowitz in plagiarism. However, what he presents in the time I watched was simply places where Dershowitz used the same quotations that another author used. That's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the exact words or ideas of another without proper citation. If one author uses a quotation and another author sees that and uses the quotation too, in each case citing the original author, that is the academic standard. One is asked by presses specifically to remove the double citation (e.g. Kant in Jameson 1973, ...) in such cases. Rarely, one will include the double but either way it is not plagiarism.
I suspect for similar reasons that Gay's thesis wasn't plagiarized either because academic works are always going to be quoting other authors and paraphrasing their words while using the identical technical terms, which is what it sounds like Gay did, according to an online article on the subject.
He used the exact words and punctuation, even the mistakes.
This is the part that is quibbling about quotations or not. The source is full of terms of art that would lose their meaning if she tried to change terms like "high black empowerment areas" and "empowerment influence of black participation" into something else. And it is one fricking sentence and not whole paragraphs. This is exactly the kind of stuff the computer software flags. If academics had to follow your rules, you would get something like this:
Source:
We take the position that diversity and inclusion initiatives failed to meet the programs goals because they failed to set standards on socioeconomic status.
In your world, someone talking about this in their dissertation would have to come up with a word salad like this:
Johnson and Williams positional statement in their work conveyed their position that programs designed to bring in more people of color from broad backgrounds did not attain the stated objectives because they did not at the outset establish guiding principles on what spectrum of income and concomitant social hierarchies would be considered.
There is no reason to change terms of art like diversity and inclusion initiatives or socioeconomic status and repeating those terms of art is not plagiarism.
Maybe she can write about drive-bys as those have very high black participation!
What do "drive-bys" have to do with the thread topic?
First, Gay lifts an entire paragraph nearly verbatim from Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam’s paper, “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment,” while passing it off as her own paraphrase and language. Here is the original, from Bobo and Gilliam:
Using 1987 national sample survey data . . . the results show that blacks in high-black-empowerment areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either blacks living in low-empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the results show that empowerment influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation to politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
And here is the language from Gay’s work:
Using 1987 survey data, Bobo and Gilliam found that African-Americans in “high black-empowerment” areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either African-Americans in low empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Empowerment, they conclude, influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
What's a few paragraphs, big deal
Hey Precious Roy. This is not one sentence. It is a whole paragraph. Tell us how the above is not plagiarism.
