• A chronology of the discovery of King's plagiarism

    From Ronny Koch@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 16 06:26:15 2024
    XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.democrats, alt.business
    XPost: dc.politics

    Most of this information comes from articles collected in
    Theodore Pappas' book The Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarism
    Story (Rockford Institute, Rockford, IL, 1994). I am grateful to
    the Institute for providing a copy of this out-of-print work.

    1984

    The Martin Luther King Papers Project is formed
    1986

    David Garrow, in Bearing the Cross, relates how Ira Zepp, in an
    unpublished study, found that sections of King's Stride Towards
    Freedom are verbatim identical to passages from Paul Ramsay's
    Basic Christian Ethics and Anders Nygren's Eros and Agape.
    Garrow refrains from using the 'p' word, and his index calls the
    incident 'ghostwriting'
    1986

    The King Papers Project receives the first of its over $500,000
    of NEH funding
    Late 1987

    The King Papers project first discovers evidence of King's
    plagiarism.
    October 1989

    According to Waldman, King's plagiarism was discussed in the
    presence of his widow, Coretta Scott King, in an all-day meeting
    in Atlanta. Mrs. King remained silent through most of the
    meeting, and has since declined to answer queries about her
    husband's plagiarism. The board decides to publish King's papers
    with footnotes fully detailing the plagiarism, and to separately
    publish an article outlining its extent.
    December 3, 1989

    Frank Johnson, in the British Sunday Telegraph , reveals that
    Ralph Luker, associate editor of the King Papers Project, has
    informed him that King had borrowed heavily from the thesis of
    Jack Boozer, fellow Boston University theology student and later
    Professor of Religion at Emory. Luker temporizes, promising that
    full facts will be available in nine months. Claiborne Carson,
    director of the Project, says when asked about the charge of
    plagiarism "It's really not true...what we're talking about is
    the question of whether there was an adequate citation of all
    sources".
    Major American newspapers totally ignore the article.

    January 22, 1990

    The Liberty Lobby's The Spotlight prints a front-page story on
    King's plagiarized thesis, based on the Sunday Telegraph column.
    March 1 1990

    According to Babington, King's plagiarism is widely discussed at
    the Southern Intellectual History Circle, meeting at Chapel
    Hill. Luker, who attended, says the story was 'academic cocktail-
    party gossip' at the time. UNC sociologist John Shelton Reed
    hears the story, and cites it in a gossip column for Chronicles
    , the magazine of the Rockford Institute. He later balks at
    publishing after receiving a stern letter from B.U. acting
    president Jon Westling.
    'early 1990'

    According to Babington, Carson's team informs the National
    Endowment for the Humanities of the plagiarism. NEH decides not
    to divulge the information.
    Spring 1990

    Washington Post reporter Dan Balz approaches Carson with
    questions about the plagiarism, but is misled by Carson, who
    admits he tried to 'play it down'.
    June 1990

    According to Waldman, Carson submitted an article to Journal of
    American History, but it was rejected because Carson was
    unwilling to 'take a firm stand' on the question of whether
    King's thesis was plagiarized.
    September 1990

    Thomas Fleming writes in the conservative magazine Chronicles
    that King's doctorate should be regarded as a courtesy title,
    since it had been recently revealed that he had plagiarized his
    dissertation.
    October 5 1990

    Boston University President Jon Westling sends a letter to
    Chronicles (published in the January 1991 issue) denying
    Fleming's charge. Westling, in an apparent bare-faced lie, says
    that King's dissertation has been 'scrupulously examined and
    reexamined by scholars', and that 'not a single instance of
    plagiarism of any sort has been identified....not a single
    reader has ever found any nonattributed or misattributed
    quotations, misleading paraphrases, or thoughts borrowed without
    due scholarly reference in any of its 343 pages'.
    Fall 1990

    Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Waldman calls Carson. Carson
    tries stonewalling him, but Waldman informs Carson he has a copy
    of Jack Boozer's dissertation, from which King stole heavily.
    Carson decides the game is up, and agrees to cooperate with
    Waldman in breaking the story.
    November 9, 1990

    Peter Waldman, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal,
    'breaks' the story in the American mass media. The article
    quotes Claiborne Carson finally admitting King's plagiarism. The
    article soft-pedals King's 'borrowings', and cites Keith
    Miller's thesis that King's 'voice merging' stems from the oral
    traditions of the black church. The article says that 'most of
    King's papers had many original thoughts', but often 'borrowed
    without citing'. According to Waldman, Carson has asked staff
    members to refrain from use of the 'p'-word around the office.
    November 10 1990

    Other major American newspapers followed the WSJ with front-page
    stories on the plagiarism
    January 1991

    Theodore Pappas, in a article in Chronicles written before the
    WSJ article, compares sections of King's thesis in detail with
    that of Jack Boozer, showing for the first time the enormous
    extent of King's plagiarism.
    January 1991

    Charles Babington in the New Republic reveals how several
    American newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, Atlanta
    Journal Constitution and the New Republic) had the story since
    at least Spring 1990), but either out of ineptitude or political
    correctness did nothing with it.
    September 1991

    A Boston University committee reports that while 45% of the
    first half and 21% of the second half of King's thesis was
    plagiarized, it was still an original contribution to
    scholarship, and his degree should not be revoked. The true
    extent of King's plagiarism is much greater, and comparing his
    thesis with its sources, one can only conclude that BU's
    conclusion was purely political and academically dishonest.

    http://www.martinlutherking.org/chronology.html


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)