Response to the “Statement on Plagia­rism”

Dear Editor:

I have just completed a reading of your recent “Statement on Plagiarism” in Per­spectives. You, as well as the AHA, are to be congratulated on having the courage to deal with this problem. I have long felt that insistence upon the  necessity for academic freedom (which I com­pletely share) requires as well some means of ensuring accountability. I am therefore delighted that the Profession­ al Division of the AHA is addressing some of the issues involved.

Although I agree with the thrust of your statement, I did have some reservations. I recognize that to define ap­propriate standards of behavior is ex­traordinarily difficult, for the line be­tween proper use and improper use of both secondary and primary materials is at best murky (except, of course, in obvious cases). Upon reading your state­ment, I had the feeling that your discus­sion of the problem was too general and at times vague. Under such circum­stances a good lawyer could make mincemeat of any potential allegation involving plagiarism. Might it not be possible to develop a more stringent statement, which lays out appropriate and inappropriate norms of scholarly behavior?

I fully recognize the problems that you undoubtedly encountered, and I have nothing but sympathy and admira­tion for your effort. But a vague and general statement often cannot stand up in a court of law. And as we all know, university and scholarly processes are increasingly being held to more strin­gent legal norms. Indeed, several years ago we had an interesting case at Rutgers. A member of the faculty was holding another fulltime appointment at a nearby college. He applied for and was granted a sabbatical, during which he continued to teach at the other insti­tution. When this fact became public, charges were brought against him. Al­though the case was an open and shut one by normal academic standards, his lawyer gained what was in effect an acquittal (he was simply reprimanded) on the ground that university statutes nowhere stipulated that the holding of two fulltime positions was inappropri­ate.

Obviously, there are severe problems in attempting to draw up a set of clear and binding guidelines. I am also not certain that our training as historians gives us sufficient expertise to frame rules that in the final analysis will have to withstand legal challenges. Might it therefore be appropriate to call upon individuals (probably in law schools) who are better trained than ourselves to assist in drafting a statement on plagia­rism that could meet legal requirements (as contrasted with scholarly norms).

In offering such a suggestion, I mean no criticism of your efforts; I fully subscribe to the basic concepts of your statement. But there were parts to the statement that were too vague, at least from a legal point of view. And any process that might eventuate in a repri­mand or the loss of tenure would most certainly have to be adjudicated in a legal or quasi-legal setting.

In closing, let me again express my appreciation for your efforts. There  is no question but that you are on the right track.