And that stands for “plagiarism.” You know, the theft of ideas? Sure, it may be accidental or even unnoticeable, but avoiding it is fully possible with methodical research and focus. And if something does slip through the cracks multiple times, it is a sign of seriously needed remediation for a person’s work ethic. Would you trust someone who has inadvertently plagiarized multiple times any more than you would a shoplifter who inadvertently walked out of a store without paying multiple times?
The Bush administration does: it has voiced its support for U.S. Federal District Court nominee Michael O’Neill who has admitted to charges of plagiarism on multiple occasions. O’Neill used to be legal council to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) of the Judiciary Committee, who believes that the nominee would overall make an excellent judge. In addition, he helped steer the Alito and Roberts nominations through confirmation hearings, was a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, and was “highly recommended” to the president (in other words, he touts a sparkling set of conservative credentials).
One problemo: he is a law professor with various published articles from 2000 to 2004 revealed to have been lifted or slightly altered from their original authors’ works. Most recently, the Supreme Court Economic Review issued a retraction last year for O’Neill’s 2004 tainted article for non-attribution of ideas. O’Neill blamed the oversight on “a poor work method” and surrendered his tenure at George Mason University, where he still remains as an associate professor. He admitted, however, to being open about the controversy with the Administration during the vetting process and asks if the hullaballoo is “something to kill somebody’s career for?” Listen, Prof., admitting to plagiarism is the least you could have done—otherwise both you and the White House would look foolish when it got to confirmation hearing time.
In the interest of disclosure, here is a sampling of his not-work:
O’Neill: Thus, even if a criminal acts irrationally by taking a risk where the expected costs exceed the expected gains, he may still take the course of action with the lower cost-to-benefit ratio.
Original author: So even if criminals act “irrationally” by taking a risk where the expected sanction exceeds the expected benefit, they may still take the course of action with the lower cost-to-benefit ratio.
(Soure: The New York Times)
The coinciding text has been bolded, italicized, and underlined. From this you can see that he O’Neill simply singularized the subject, changed the introductory word, and replaced the direct objects with lower-tech synonyms.
What’s the bottom line? This guy may be hardworking and loyal and have a solid judicial philosophy (or is good at repeating the philosophy of others, as the case may be), but plagiarism is no small thing. Especially for a professor. If any of his students were discovered to have committed such an offense, I wonder if he would entertain the “poor work method” excuse. If he is an asset to the George Mason law faculty and a great guy (of which there is no evidence to the contrary), by all means he should be glad—and humbled—to keep his job. But a promotion would be totally unacceptable; his actions, while not dangerous or damning, are still criminal. The benefit was a few extra words on paper; the cost was a damaged reputation. So even though O’Neill was not involved with a sex, drugs, or money scandal like some other appointed/elected leaders, he did choose the crime with, in the words of not-Mr. O’Neill, the lower cost-to-benefit ratio.
There could be one bright spot for O’Neill: The New York Times reports that he is currently working on a master’s degree in fiction writing. Rumor has it that his first novel is about a prepubescent adoptee who discovers his calling at a secret school for witches and wizards in order to avenge the deaths of his parents at the hands of a mortal foe. This sounds like an unusually thrilling concoction for a law professor…but he’s got my preorder for sure.
7/9
