When Theft and Fraud No Longer Matter: Donald Trump and the Denigration of Core Values

Monica Crowley, a former talking head at FOX News who resigned to take a position---Director of Strategic Communications for the National Security Council---in the Trump administration, published a New York Times bestselling book, “What The (Bleep) Just Happened?,” in 2012. Not being a fan of either her commentary or her writing---she is no Nick Kristof and she is no Leonard Pitts---I admit to not having read it.

Nonetheless, I can tell you now that there seems to be a problem with the content of the book.

A detailed study of it by CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski (CNN KFile) has apparently revealed that Ms. Crowley did not provide proper attribution for a right fair amount of material in the book; that’s a nice way of saying that she is guilty of what seems to be an egregious degree of plagiarism (though one unattributed sentence is, for me, an egregious degree of plagiarism).

I’ll not bore you with examples---they are just too numerous. It is enough to say that Mr. Kaczynski’s article fully and factually documents, in his words, “upwards of 50 examples of plagiarism from numerous sources, including the copying with minor changes of news articles, other columnists, think tanks, and Wikipedia.” Notably, he also mentions that the book “contains no notes or bibliography.”

This is not, by the way, Ms. Crowley’s first brush with accusations that she has plagiarized material for written materials she authored.

Ms. Crowley, a career-long apologist for Richard Nixon, penned what Timothy Noah of Slate termed “a Nixon apologia” on August 9, 1999 on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Within four days, the WSJ had fact-checked numerous complaints about what appeared to be clear use of unattributed material and published a note from the editor: “There are striking similarities in phraseology between ‘The Day Richard Nixon Said Goodbye,’ an editorial feature Monday by Monica Crowley, and a 1988 article by Paul Johnson in Commentary magazine…Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article.”

Despite the editor’s rather telling comment in the WSJ, Ms. Crowley denied even having read the Paul Johnson article from which she had clearly lifted material---at times, word-for-word---for her 1999 article. And, as of this writing, Ms. Crowley has refused numerous requests for comment per the newest charges of plagiarism lodged against her.

However, the book’s publisher, HarperCollins, has now pulled the book from bookshelves and other sales outlets and issued the following statement: “The book, which has reached the end of its natural sales cycle, will no longer be offered for purchase until such time as the author has the opportunity to source and revise the material.”

Unfortunately for Ms. Crowley, however, the situation is worsening as still more examples of, well, egregious plagiarism have been revealed, this one involving numerous examples found in her doctoral dissertation for Columbia University. As Politico Magazine reports, “An examination of the dissertation and the sources it cites identified around more than a dozen sections of text that have been lifted, with little to no changes, from other scholarly works without proper attribution.”

Neither Ms. Crowley’s dissertation advisor nor Columbia University would comment, though it is notable that Columbia has, on at least one other occasion, rescinded a Ph.D as a result of plagiarism findings.

Predictably for a group seemingly devoid of the capacity for self-examination or self-criticism, the Trump transition team is in full defense mode, dismissing the clear evidence of plagiarism and claiming that the revelations made by Mr. Kaczynski et al are nothing more than an “attempt to discredit Monica” and represent “nothing more than a politically motivated attack that seeks to distract from the real issues facing this country.” And the intensity and language used by Trump supporters on social media becomes more offensive by the hour as they ramp up their defense of the indefensible.

Which is far more alarming to me than Ms. Crowley’s plagiaristic adventures.

II

I was a high school student in the mid-60’s. I attended what I suppose would be termed your basic public high school on the semi-rural outskirts of the capital city of my home state in the deep south.

The only really unique aspect of my high school was just how underestimated it was at the time---perhaps because it wasn’t one of the “city schools” that were assumed to be more academically advanced.

Interestingly enough however, I became, among other things that greatly benefited me in later academic pursuits, very much aware of the fundamental importance of footnoting, citing and giving proper attribution to work that belonged to others but which I had utilized in my own work. Indeed, had I written an essay or short paper on any subject and plagiarized material as Ms. Crowley has done, the grade would have been “F” and my guess is that the punishment would not have ended there.

Hence, when I headed off to college, I knew that not giving proper attribution was a practice fraught with peril---a lesson that had not been learned by a surprising number of my college classmates who had perhaps attended high schools that were, uh, perhaps overrated.

The college I attended was a relatively small, insular, well-respected, private liberal arts school that went heavy on the importance of writing research papers. Twenty-page research papers for virtually every liberal arts course one took. And, as had been the case in high school, footnotes, cites and proper attribution were taken seriously---very seriously.

Indeed, had I written a paper and been found, like Ms. Crowley, to have not given proper attribution, not only would the grade for the paper have been an “F” but my grade for the class would have been “F.” And I might well have found myself standing in front of an honor court with absolutely no defense.

I went to graduate school for my masters and doctoral degrees from 1972-79, attending a right tall-towered, ivy-covered private university. Plagiarism in either of those programs was almost considered a crime. Had I been found guilty of omitting attribution in either of those degree pursuits, I would have been kicked out of the program and kicked out of the school post haste. And there would have been few schools willing to entertain an application for an advanced degree from a student who had been given the boot from another school---especially that school---for plagiarism.

In other words, my academic career would have, for all intents and purposes, been over.

Plagiarism is serious business. As one of my college professors said, it is, in effect, theft---you are stealing material that rightly belongs to someone else. In a similar vein, I tell my students that it is nothing less than fraud---you are fraudulently claiming credit for material that is not, in fact, your material. And, as my professor told us, so do I tell my students: Theft and Fraud are not to be taken lightly---neither will the consequences.

III

It is becoming more evident every day that neither Donald Trump, his family, his staff nor his supporters can bear even the hint of negative press without the help of heavy medication---be it in prescription or bottle form.

The scary part of that dynamic is that it reveals just how inexperienced and thin-skinned those at the top of his administration really are. It is as if, when one of their own receives critical press, he/she is being “picked on” in ways that are unique to a Trump administration. Heck, I’m unaware of any administration that hasn’t received critical press or, in the case of President Obama, even had his legitimacy questioned for years by the putz who lied for years about his “investigation” of the president’s birth certificate---he never had anyone the president’s birthplace because he knew there was nothing to be found. But, beyond having to face a destructive publicity hound like Donald Trump, critical examination by the press is something that any incoming president and staff should expect to face.

(Though Trump is trying to avoid it by issuing embarrassing statements via his Twitter account, thereby not having to explain his remarks to the press. I mean, how would The Twit answer a reporter who questioned him about his tweet per Meryl Streep being, uh, “overrated?”)

However, the Trump crowd’s defense of Monica Crowley---completely dismissing the objectively factual charge that she committed plagiarism by terming it “a politically motivated attack”---screams “thin-skinned,” “inexperienced” and “not ready for prime time.”

But it also evidences a darker theme: To simply ignore or dismiss the importance of what amounts to theft and fraud is to indicate the absence of some important core values in the Trump circle.

Trump’s staff and his supporters who weighed in on social media implied that the whole story was an example of what they now term “media fraud.”

No. No. No.

This isn’t “fake news,” as the primary purveyors of “fake news” ironically termed it. This story isn’t a “media fraud,” as the primary purveyors of “media fraud” ironically termed it.

Monica Crowley is the thief and Monica Crowley is the fraud. That’s factual. That’s documented. HarperCollins doesn't deny it because the publisher knows its undeniable. Her “supporters” don’t even bother to deny it because they know it’s undeniable.

So, instead of dismissing it as irrelevant---it’s not!---why not just admit the obvious? Why not just admit---any press office can find words to soften the blow---that she did it and shouldn’t have? That she was wrong? That she made a mistake, albeit knowingly?

I mean, what does it say about an incoming administration that it is simply unable to admit that it is ever wrong? What does it say about an incoming administration that claims to never be wrong, that claims it never stretches the truth---or, more often, knowingly lies---but that its accusers, who are always wrong, are, in effect, its enemies and deserve nothing less than both professional and personal denigration?

And what does it say about an incoming administration’s supporters that they blindly reject any negative statement made about it and engage in the same kind of offensive, knee-jerk denigration of “the enemy”---denigration that is, again, both professional and personal?

I’ll tell you what it says: It says that we as a people and as a country are in treacherous waters and that those setting the sails and manning the rudder lack the core moral values that would normally engender our trust in them to watch over the best interests of we as a people and as a country.

As I said, plagiarism is serious business. But the implications of not treating it as serious business can be, in this instance, revelatory of a rot that goes much deeper.