Lawrence van Rijn – Law Lord to be

It is a regular A,B,C. And at first I let it slide but then I got a response from the most ignorant stupid Canadian on the planet, I kid you not. As such I had to pick this up. 

Mark Carney (formerly known as Markie Mark of the British Bank) is now at present the PM of Canada and there is an election coming up. So now we get the accusation (as far as I can see) from the National Post. A magazine who is on the side off whomever opposes Mark Carney (conservatively minded), and will you believe it, they are pushing for plagiarism, weirdly enough, the article is well written making the setting a larger problem and all the other sources basically repeat what the National Post gave its readers. 

Two stood out
First there is the Independent (at https://www.independent.co.uk/politics/mark-carney-canada-prime-minister-plagiarism-oxford-b2723812.html) here we also see ‘Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney accused of plagiarism in his Oxford thesis’, now the issues I had was that the accusation came right when there is an election, the larger setting is that this happened 30 years ago and it was at Oxford and academics take plagiarism as the big booboo. As such there is a larger look at Plagiarism (I remember my days in Uni and there is a frightening fear for that word). 

The independent gives us “The accusations were reportedly made by three academics chosen to assess the liberal leader’s 1995 theses for his doctorate by the conservative newspaper the National Post.” More important we were given ““As an academic of nearly 40 years, I see no evidence of plagiarism in the thesis you cited, nor any unusual academic practices,” she emphasized.” This is given to us by Margaret Meyer, an American economist and an economics fellow at Nuffield College in Oxford University. In addition she gives us “Mark’s thesis was evaluated and approved by a faculty committee that saw his work for what it is: an impressive and thoroughly researched analysis that set him apart from his peers” added to that we get “A spokesperson for the Liberal campaign, Isabella Orozco-Madison, called the allegations an “irresponsible mischaracterization” of Carney’s work.” So far, so good. I believe that a thesis would not be unattended for 30 years, not from a place like Oxford. You see, Oxford is surrounded by close to a thousand reporters in any given day, and they have Cambridge looking over their shoulders, just like Oxford is watching Cambridge like a hawk. As I see it, there are issues to some degree and as such we get to the second piece. It comes from 

Where we are given “In my January 2024 blog post, “Plagiarism Witch Hunts Cause Harm,” about the case of former Harvard University President, Dr. Claudine Gay, I pointed out that we appear to be in an era where plagiarism is increasingly weaponized against public figures. Following the resignation of Dr. Gay amid plagiarism allegations, we have seen a troubling pattern of using academic integrity as a political weapon rather than an educational concern.” And this is followed by “There is no singular or universally accepted definition of plagiarism. Oxford University defines it as “presenting work or ideas from another source as your own.” However, interpretations of definitions, as well as the definitions themselves can vary from one university to the next, as I have pointed out elsewhere. In Carney’s case, his doctoral supervisor defended his work, stating she saw “no evidence of plagiarism in the thesis,” whereas academics consulted by the National Post disagreed. One professor, Dr. Geoffrey Sigalet, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO) stated that the unattributed quotes are “what we call plagiarism.” According to the National Post article, Dr. Sigalet is a member of the UBCO’s institutional president’s advisory committee on student discipline, “which handles cases of plagiarism for the university”. This disagreement underscores the subjectivity in evaluating academic integrity.” With the added question that gives weight to a few issues I have being “Upon reading the National Post article, one question that I had was: was Mr. Carney informed of the allegations before they were investigated?” My issues was that the media could be in hotter waters than they think. As I see it they propagated this setting by basically whaling whatever the National Post handed down to their audience. The added setting given to us is the one why I basically rejected the article, especially as Markie Mark is an Oxford graduate, on a personal note it isn’t the University of Technology Sydney, but they are a larger lead in university educations. And as such when we are given “Investigating work completed nearly 30 years ago raises questions about motives and impact. As I have pointed out previously when I commented on the Dr. Claudine Gay case, “a retroactive investigation into a person’s academic work while they were a student is often an exercise in discrediting someone in their current professional role.”” I basically rejected the stance as I presumed the clarity of the “using academic integrity as a political weapon”, yet I personally would want to call it “abusing academic integrity and misaligning it as a political weapon” A setting that one raised probably in favor of their Conservative Leader (I believe that in Canada it currently is Pierre Polivicious) and that setting we get to the last part given to us by Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education. She gives us the cherrie of the pie. It is given through “So, Did Mark Carney Plagiarize or Not? The answer is, I don’t know. When I conduct an analysis of text for possible plagiarism, it is a meticulously in-depth and detailed process. I start with the allegedly plagiarized text and I go through it line-by-line comparing it to the original sources from which text has been allegedly lifted without attribution. That can show whether or not there is a potential ‘text match’. There are examples of possible text matches in the National Post article, but they are selective. I cannot make a call on whether or not there was plagiarism based on excerpts. I would want to see the full texts (original and allegedly plagiarized), not bits and pieces.

If we can identify a possible text match, then we need to look for additional evidence. Was this sloppy scholarship or poor academic literacy? For example, were the original sources perhaps listed in the bibliography, but the direct quotations were not attributed in the main body of the text? In the context of the entire thesis, would it appear as though the student was deliberately trying to deceive their supervisor or academic advisory committee. (Intent to deceive is difficult, if not impossible to prove in many cases.)” This is the cherrie as it allows to ask the media to ask these questions, especially the media that merely copied what the National Post gave us. And these publications gave us lacking settings in addition. Who talked to the supervisor of Mark Carney? Who took the questions to Nuffield College, Oxford? Seems like two essential sources for these articles. I see several sources lacking. 

As such I have said my piece and I do not believe that there is a case for plagiarism against Mark Carney. Not because I got the paper (I basically lack economic knowledge), but for the simple setting that a place like Oxford will slap down any student who pushes Plagiarism, intentional or not. Such plagiarism cases hurt Oxford as much as the student. Then there is the timeline. Do you think that the Bank Of England takes on a student who attempts plagiarism? The timeline includes Goldman Sachs (that place is loaded with economy guys) and his work would have been scrutinized by dozens of people and 30 year later, just at the upcoming election someone makes a breakthrough? It smells like yesterdays diapers as Baby Herman told Roger Rabbit. 

Have a great day and enjoy the smell of coffee today.