Bill Clinton had a hard time explaining his definition of “is.”
Richard Nixon wasn’t quite sure what “obstruction of justice” meant.
And Paige Patterson has redefined plagiarism.
After reading this story about Romanian plagiarist Paul Negrut, I’m left with the following questions and thoughts:
1. Would Paige Patterson sign the diploma of a doctoral candidate who submitted a dissertation that contained 80% uncredited and word-for-word copy of another published work?
2. Would Paige Patterson hire a professor to teach in the School of Theology who had republished another’s work under his own name, or the name of his university president?
3. Would Paige Patterson pass a student who submitted a term paper containing 80% uncredited and word-for-word copy from another author’s work?
4. How does the Southwestern faculty feel now, knowing that their president does not believe plagiarism exists when an author reproduces the work of another without source credit?
5. Why hasn’t Paige Patterson just “borrowed” W.A. Criswell’s commentary on Revelation and reproduced it verbatim to complete his New American Commentary on the Apocalypse?
6. What standard of academic credibility do the trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary wish to govern the school’s administration?
7. Does Southwestern Seminary have a policy regarding plagiarism that differs from Paige Patterson’s new definition of the term?