Friday, February 24, 2006

Harvard's Laurence Tribe writes a letter to the editor.

In March, 2002, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who represented Vice President Al Gore before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and who's regarded as a likely Supreme Court nominee if the Democrats recapture the White House in '08, wrote a letter to the The Crimson, Harvard's student newspaper,

Tribe was responding to The Crimson's call for historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to resign from Harvard's Board of Overseers, the university's second highest governing body.

The Crimson's resignation call
came following disclosures Goodwin had plagiarized from several sources for her best selling history, The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys.

The Crimson noted Harvard's student handbook called for expulsion of a student who'd engaged in plagiarism.

Tribe meant his letter to be a defense of Goodwin and a castigation and dismissal of The Crimson editors.

But what it really does, albeit unintentionally, is reveal the disgraceful manner in which a faculty member treated facts and students.

And the faculty's silence following publication of Tribe's letter tells us a great deal about the collapse of humanistic and academic values at Harvard.

I’ll say more about that tomorrow and in subsequent posts.

Now to Tribe's letter. For readers' ease, I've broken his lengthy paragraphs into shorter ones. Otherwise, his letter's unchanged.

To the editors:

I read with great sadness the editorial written by The Crimson Staff (“The Consequence of Plagiarism,” March 11) calling attention to the several inadequately footnoted phrases and passages drawn from a book by Lynne McTaggart, and from another two or perhaps three works, by the distinguished historian and public commentator, Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her 1987 book, “The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys.”

The editorial chided her for not having consulted the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Handbook for Students before publishing her own 900-page work, a work closely documented with something like 3,500 footnotes—and a work, I might add, that made no bones about its debt to McTaggart, whose book Goodwin dutifully credited and footnoted any number of times and with whom she had settled the inadequate sourcing dispute many years ago.

To add insult to injury, the Crimson staff lectured Goodwin that “she has a long road ahead of her before she restores her credibility as an historian or journalist” and helpfully advised that her “first step should be resigning from the University’s oldest governing board,” its 30-member Board of Overseers.

What utter nonsense!

To be clear, my sadness came not simply from the fact that I have known Doris Kearns Goodwin for decades and am proud to count myself among her friends as well as her admirers.

Nor was I sad to see that Harvard undergraduates remain devoted to the highest standards of scholarly integrity and simple honesty; that devotion heartens me.

Rather, I was sad to see how eagerly these bright young people piled on to heap self-righteous condemnation on a scholar whose too-close-paraphrasing of a few passages even the Crimson editors had to acknowledge was “unintentional,” and who had already taken a ridiculous number of hits, ranging from her suspension from “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” to her own recusal from this year’s Pulitzer Prize board deliberations to the University of Delaware’s decision to withdraw its invitation that she be its commencement speaker.

I was sad to see how mindlessly, to be frank, students of the college I attended and for which I still feel the greatest fondness were willing to mimic all these presumably sage elders—by overstating what Doris Kearns Goodwin did in being admittedly sloppy with her sources in a minuscule part of her truly extraordinary body of work a decade and a half ago.

And I was sad to witness what seems to me the students’ lack of any real sense of proportion or, for that matter, much sense of decency.

Of course Goodwin erred in following her own paraphrased handwritten notes without checking back in every last one of the 300 or so books she cited to make certain that she had not somewhere mistaken a phrase of her own for a phrase of the author to whom she was footnoting.

I do not minimize that error; it was one no scholar should make, and one Doris Kearns Goodwin would be the first to admit she should not have made.

But there can be no doubt that, unlike the student who turns in someone else’s work as her own and hopes the instructor won’t notice the cribbing—the student for whom the Harvard disciplinary rules to which the Crimson editorial referred were principally written—Goodwin, who cited the very sources she has been accused of not crediting, had not the slightest intention to deceive, to claim originality for thoughts that were unoriginal, or to appropriate another’s deathless prose in hopes that she might be credited with a literary gift that belongs in truth to someone else.

And there can be no doubt that, unlike any number of historians and others who have been caught falsifying as fact what was, in truth, fantasy—either about their own lives or about the events they were chronicling—Goodwin has not been accused, and could not plausibly be accused, of ever purveying false or misleading information, the cardinal sin for any scholar.

The very fact that a number of worthies have seen fit to trumpet their own impeccably high standards by suspending or canceling roles and engagements in which Goodwin would have performed both brilliantly and honorably suggests a rather crude moral and scholarly calculus on their part, but that is a subject for another time.

My only purpose here is to help set the record straight by speaking up, as one scholar who values his own integrity and reputation for meticulous attribution as much as anyone could, for one of the truly outstanding historians of our time, who eloquently brings to life and puts in marvelous perspective not only signal episodes of our past, some misunderstood and others never before unearthed, but also the passing drama of our present.

The NewsHour is poorer for her absence; the students commencing from Delaware will miss much wisdom because she will not be addressing them; the Harvard Board of Overseers would be greatly diminished without her presence; and the students who undertook to judge her—as well as their parents—would be proud if one day they managed to achieve a fraction of what she has achieved, with as little sacrifice or compromise of their personal integrity.

Laurence H. Tribe

The writer is Tyler professor of constitutional law.
_________________________________________

Can you believe Tribe's letter.

I responded to it, with particular attention to his nonsensical:
I do not minimize that error; it was one no scholar should make, and one Doris Kearns Goodwin would be the first to admit she should not have made.
The Crimson published my letter. You can read it here.

I hope you come back tomorrow afternoon.

John

UPDATE - Feb. 25:

A Crimson editor later told me not a single faculty member wrote to the paper supporting what the students had written or taking Tribe to task for his bullying or correcting his many errors of fact.

And friends at Harvard say they can't recall any effort by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to pass a motion saying Goodwin should resign as an Overseer. Yet a few years later, that same faculty voted “no confidence” in Summers.

It all tells you a lot about Harvard.

0 comments: