Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch copied the structure and language used by several authors and failed to cite source material in his book and an academic article, according to documents provided to POLITICO.
The White House naturally calls it a smear and fake news. Some experts on plagiarism were consulted by Politico. They see things differently. For example:
“Each of the individual incidents constitutes a violation of academic ethics. I’ve never seen a college plagiarism code that this would not be in violation of,” said Rebecca Moore Howard, a Syracuse University professor who has written extensively on the issue.
Gorsuch defenders don’t say he didn’t borrow material. Said one:
“Judge Gorsuch did not attempt to steal other people’s intellectual property or pass off ideas or arguments taken from other writers as his own. In no case did he seek credit for insights or analysis that had been purloined. In short, not only is there no fire, there isn’t even any smoke.”
It is not claiming credit to take words, verbatim, from another and put them in a book under your name without attribution?
Doesn’t matter. Once the filibuster rule is dumped, the only thing that matters is the number 51. And, by the way, I still believe Anita Hill.