EDIT: As of 4/14/10, the editor-in-chief of the Herald published a note explaining that the author was dismissed from the staff. A “thorough review” found two other articles by the same individual that “…used facts and languages from other sources without attribution.”
As I was doing research for a column opposing ‘Just Say No’ (April 6, 2010 Brown Daily Herald) I came upon a Providence Journal article that closely mirrored the content, order, and quotations of the editorial.
I’m new to the editing game, so I submit this question to the wisdom of the collective. Do you think this constitutes plagiarism? Is it on the line? Or am I over-reacting and unfairly disparaging the board? Leave your reactions in the comments.
pla•gia•rism
–noun
- the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
- something used and represented in this manner.
The left column consists of the complete editorial ‘Just Say No’, printed on Tues. Apr 6 2010 in the Brown Daily Herald.
The right column has selected portions of one article, “Bill would require drug testing for R.I. welfare recipients,”, published Friday, March 26, 2010. Only entire paragraphs – containing additional detail not included in the BDH editorial – have been deleted. The article can be found at http://www.projo.com/news/content/URINE_TESTING_FOR_WELFARE_03-26-10_K3HTCJ6_v9.3a557aa.htmls
| State Rep. Peter Palumbo, D-Cranston, has introduced a bill that would require drug testing for all adult welfare recipients and their immediate adult family members. Individuals found using illegal drugs would lose monthly cash benefits. | PROVIDENCE –– Welfare recipients who use illegal drugs would lose access to cash benefits if Peter Palumbo has his way.
The Cranston representative has introduced legislation that would require almost 7,000 low-income Rhode Islanders on welfare and their immediate adult family members to pass urine tests. |
| If Palumbo’s goal is to further stigmatize the welfare program, this legislation will certainly do the trick. If his goal is to target poor individuals while leaving wealthier beneficiaries of government programs like tax credits off the hook, the measure is spot on. But if he is trying to save the state “a lot of money that’s being misused,” as he told the Providence Journal last month, the bill is an embarrassment. | Elizabeth V. Earls, president of the Rhode Island Council of Community Mental Health Organizations, said the change would further stigmatize the welfare program and unfairly target poor people. More affluent beneficiaries of other government programs, such as tax credits, aren’t subject to drug testing, Vitale noted. |
| For one thing, Palumbo’s proposal is blatantly unconstitutional, as it calls for testing all adults on welfare without probable cause. Michigan passed a similar law in 1997, and the law was challenged shortly thereafter. In 2000, a District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction against the measure, calling it “dangerously at odds with the tenets of our democracy.” And in 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the ruling, setting a precedent that remains in place today. | “Clearly this legislation is unconstitutional for it would require testing of all welfare recipients without any cause or reasonable suspicion,” Amy Vitale, representative of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union said in written testimony. “In fact, when Michigan passed mandatory drug testing for welfare in 1997 their law was nearly instantly challenged and subsequently declared unconstitutional.” |
| As far as savings go, Palumbo might want to take another look at Rhode Island’s spending on welfare. The monthly cash payments to welfare beneficiaries come entirely from federal funds. State taxpayers finance only the administrative costs of the program, which probably wouldn’t decrease if payments were cut off for a small fraction of welfare recipients. The state’s budget certainly needs work, but Palumbo should keep his focus on programs that actually use state dollars. | And in addition to doubting the reliability of drug tests, Poverty Institute Policy Director Linda Katz questioned whether the legislation would meet Palumbo’s goal to save money.
Aside from administrative costs, Rhode Island taxpayers will pay nothing this year to fund the welfare program now dubbed “Rhode Island Works.” “If he’s looking to make any savings in terms of general revenue, there’s no savings to be had because we’re not spending a penny,” Katz said. “We’re not giving any families any state dollars.” |
| It’s not just that Palumbo’s proposal won’t generate savings; it may actually drain the state’s coffers even further. The Rhode Island Department of Human Services has cited serious concerns about implementation costs, estimating that it would cost between $2.4 million and $7.2 million to test the 8,000 adults in question. | The cost of monthly drug testing for an estimated 8,000 adults could be between $2.4 million and $7.2 million, depending on the kind of testing used, according to Casey’s statement, which was submitted to the Finance Committee. |
| Palumbo said he has heard stories about welfare recipients selling their food stamps to fund their drug habits (he admitted that he has heard only second-hand accounts of such activity, but he told the Providence Journal that he is “convinced that it’s happening”). Using public support to buy illegal drugs is clearly reprehensible, and taxpayers and elected officials alike are right to be concerned about where welfare dollars are going. But if poor drug users lose their welfare benefits and still cannot find work, the social costs are likely to be exacerbated. | “We need to save money any way we can save money,” Palumbo said in a phone interview hours before his proposal was scheduled for review by the House Finance Committee. “I’m confident we’ll be able to find a lot of money that’s being misused…. I don’t have firsthand knowledge, but you hear of stories that they’re selling food stamps to get drugs and things of that nature. I’m convinced that it’s happening.” |
| Rhode Island’s poverty rate is hovering above 12 percent, making it the highest in New England. The state’s unemployment rate is nearly 13 percent — the third highest in the country. Now is no time to threaten welfare benefits for people who need them the most. If his bill doesn’t pass this time around, Palumbo said he will “have to come back another day.” Let’s hope the General Assembly has enough sense to say no both now and in the future. | This appears to be original. |
I fail to see how this represents a good example of plagiarism
Reply
Then you fail to understand the definition of “plagiarism,” which applies to much more than simply verbatim transcription of prose.
See: Will’s introduction.
Reply
might’ve passed it off as a straight news article without problems, but for them to print it as an opinions piece?
thought Ivy leaguers were better than ripping off the providence newspaper of all newspapers
Reply
What a crock of shit. The writer should have done more outside research, but that’s certainly not plagiarism — this sort of thing happens all the time in Op-Eds, as newspapers rewrite their own copy and stuff from wire services. Roland is wrong: this wouldn’t have been acceptable as a news article (though it still wouldn’t have been plagiarism), but as an Op-Ed it’s pretty standard. And hey, at least the piece is better than anything the Spectator has published.
Reply
Will reply on April 14th, 2010 5:49 pm:
Interesting take on the matter. I assume you are the Jon who used to work for the BDH?
I wonder, if the EiC found it standard, why they found similarly unattributed articles from the same author and deemed this grounds for dismissal and a published apology?
http://www.browndailyherald.com/editor-s-note-1.2222409
Thanks for frequenting the site.
Reply
@Will, why the hell would you assume that that’s Jon from the BDH? That’s a terrible assumption. Shows your level of journalistic integrity though, making presumptions, and running with them without confirmation.
This is absolutely not plagiarism. The BDH is stupid for having fired him, and you’re ridiculous for having made an issue of it.
Reply
“their immediate adult family members” vs. “their immediate adult family members,” “would lose monthly cash benefits” vs. “would lose access to cash benefits,” “further stigmatize the welfare program” vs. “further stigmatize the welfare program.” all word for word or near word for world plagiarism in the first two paragraphs. just saying
Reply
Just keep doing good posts.
Reply