Duke Graduation Speaker 'Surprised' That Some Passages From Her Speech Were Taken From a Recent Commencement Speech at Harvard (VIDEO)

So surprising. *Eye-roll.*

If you plagiarize you're going to get caught. I catch a number of students plaigarizing every semester, and this is on simple assigned essays, not research papers. Students probably spend more time scouring the web than actually writing a four-page think piece. Sadly, even scraping stuff straight from Wikipedia is a thing. Even more sadly: When I notify my dean she does nothing but to tell me, "let this be a lesson for the student." 

Right. 

In other words, cheat, violate written college rules and ethical standards --- for which in the past a students could be suspended or expelled --- and get off scot-free. Not so fast, I say. I'll give the student a "0" on the assignment, and they can complain all they want. A plagiarized paper is worth nothing. *Sigh.*

At WSJ, "Duke Commencement Speaker Takes ‘Full Responsibility’ After Similarities in Speech Spark University Probe":

Parts of her speech included passages similar to those in a 2014 Harvard graduation speech; Duke says it is investigating the matter.

A Duke University student said she is taking “full responsibility” for parts of her commencement speech that included passages similar to those in a Harvard University graduation speech years ago, prompting a university probe.

Undergraduate commencement speaker Priya Parkash spoke to her fellow classmates at Duke’s graduation ceremony on Sunday. The following day the Duke Chronicle—the university’s student newspaper—reported that several passages of Ms. Parkash’s speech were similar to that of a Harvard speech in 2014 given by then-student Sarah Abushaar. Duke is investigating the matter, a spokesman said.

A public-relations representative for Ms. Parkash said in an interview that she incorporated ideas for passages provided by friends without researching if they had been used previously. She didn’t find out until after the speech that those passages had come from a speech given at Harvard, her spokesman said.

“I was embarrassed and confused to find out too late that some of the suggested passages were taken from a recent commencement speech at another university,” Ms. Parkash said in an earlier statement provided through the PR firm. “I take full responsibility for this oversight and I regret if this incident has in any way distracted from the accomplishments of the Duke Class of 2022.”

Michael Schoenfeld, a spokesman for Duke, said the university is aware of the allegations and has “initiated a process to understand the facts of the situation.”

“Duke University expects all students to abide by their commitment to the Duke Community Standard in everything they do as students,” he said.

Parts of Ms. Parkash’s speech were similar to passages from Harvard undergraduate speaker Ms. Abushaar’s 2014 commencement address, with references to Harvard swapped for Duke.

Ms. Abushaar didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In her speech, Ms. Parkash spoke about her experience being Pakistani and going through airport security checkpoints, wearing Duke gear as a way to prove she wasn’t a threat. Ms. Abushaar made similar comments about going through airport security as a Middle Easterner in Harvard attire.

Both speakers joked about how their respective campuses could be their own independent countries.

“We had our own version of the Statue of Liberty, the John Harvard statue; our own embassies, the Harvard clubs of Boston and London; a tax collection agency, the Harvard Alumni Association; and endowment larger than more than half the world’s countries GDPs,” Ms. Abushaar said in her 2014 speech.

In Ms. Parkash’s speech on Sunday, she said, “We are home to several consulates…we also have our own version of Christ the Redeemer, the statue of James Buchanan Duke…we also have an IRS with its surprisingly bubbly fleet of tax collectors, the Duke Alumni Association; we also have the equivalent of the Federal Reserve, DUMAC, which manages an endowment larger than the GDP of one-third of the countries in the world”...

Yep. You can see that comparison at the video above.

 

White House Defends Hunter Biden's Art Selling Scheme (VIDEO)

Pfft.

Right. Hunter Biden is the next Claude Monet or Pierre-Auguste Renoir --- you gotta be kidding me!

I'm mean the crackhead's work is going on the market for as high as $500,000 for a piece. That's outrageous!

At the New York Times, "White House Sets Ethics Plan for Sales of Hunter Biden’s Art":

WASHINGTON — The White House has helped develop a system for Hunter Biden to sell pieces of his art without him, or anyone in the administration, knowing who bought them, the latest effort to respond to criticism over how President Biden’s son makes his money.

Under the arrangement, a New York City art dealer would sell the paintings, which the dealer has said he is pricing at between $75,000 and $500,000, while keeping secret all information about the sales, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The gallerist, Georges Bergès, has agreed to not share any information about the buyers or prices of Hunter Biden’s work with anyone. Mr. Bergès has also agreed to reject any offer that appears suspicious, such as one well beyond the asking price, the person familiar with the matter said.

Hunter Biden has been under scrutiny for years over business dealings around the world that often intersected with his father’s official duties. His work in Ukraine in particular became a political flash point, helping to lead indirectly to the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump, and his business dealings in China became a campaign issue last year.

Hunter Biden is also under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware over his taxes. He has said he is confident he will be cleared of any wrongdoing.

He has taken up painting in recent years, and his efforts to sell his works created a new ethics challenge for the White House, which came under pressure to ensure that buyers would not purchase them in an effort to curry favor with or gain access to the administration.

While some government ethics watchdogs defended the right of the president’s adult son to pursue a career, others raised concerns that the new arrangement lacked sufficient safeguards to prevent improper influence over the administration from potential purchasers.

Virginia Canter, the chief ethics council at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog, questioned what would stop purchasers of the artwork from subsequently making public they had bought a painting by Hunter Biden. “I think it’s creative,” Ms. Canter said. “I guess they want to manage the conflict but the problem will be enforcement. Unless you have the purchaser sign nondisclosure agreements, this information would come out.”

The administration should also specifically prohibit officers of foreign governments from purchasing the pieces of art, she said. The Treasury Department warned last year that the anonymity of high-value art transactions could make the market attractive to those engaging in illegal financial activities or people subject to U.S. sanctions.

Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the White House, said the arrangement, which was previously reported by The Washington Post, would ensure ethical dealings.

“The president has established the highest ethical standards of any administration in American history, and his family’s commitment to rigorous processes like this is a prime example,” Mr. Bates said in a statement...

 

Without God, All Morality is Mere Opinion

Here's Dennis Prager, "If There Is No God, Murder Isn't Wrong

An Embarrassing Start for the New GOP Congress

Actually, maybe House Republicans shouldn't have caved to the pressure, from Trump or elsewhere.

Following-up from yesterday, "House Republicans Retreat from Ethics Change Following Backlash."

See the Wall Street Journal editorial board, "Fake Ethics Reform Fiasco":

The burning question in the media has been whether Mr. Trump or public outcry deserve credit for the GOP’s about-face. In any case, House Republicans will pay a political price for trying, then failing, to rush through ethics changes—after running on draining the D.C. swamp. By caving so precipitously at the first sign of opposition, they’ve also invited more such pressure campaigns.

The upshot is an embarrassing start for a new GOP Congress that is supposed to be stalwart for pursuing conservative reform no matter the opposition. Progressives are elated that their Trump “resistance” project notched a victory and will continue the fact-free outrage campaigns. If you think the political pressure is intense on ethics rules, wait until the left completes its nationwide talent search for the person most harmed by the GOP’s health-care proposals. Mr. Trump will also figure he can rout any opposition with a tweet, not that he’s known for restraint.

The shame is that a review of the ethics office is overdue, much as due-process rights have suffered under the Obama Administration—from college campus show trials to bankrupting legal companies. Maybe Congress can restore its own due-process guarantees after it does something for everyone else’s.

RTWT.

House Republicans Retreat from Ethics Change Following Backlash

I wasn't following politics too closely today. Indeed, I took my son to school and came home and went back to sleep. I woke up at Noon and the GOP ethics reform story was getting tremendous coverage at Memeorandum.

If House Republicans indeed retreated because Donald Trump tweeted his displeasure, that's gotta be a significant development. The GOP (and many in the conservative) establishment dissed Trump during the Republican primaries, lots of these people being part of the "Never Trump" movement. So it's interesting to see now the kind of power Trump can wield with a single tweet.

In any case, at WSJ, "House GOP Drops Bid to Undercut Ethics Board":

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

WASHINGTON—House Republicans on Tuesday dropped their effort to curb the independence of a nonpartisan ethics board after a fierce backlash to it eclipsed other news on the first day of the new session of Congress.

Meeting behind closed doors on Tuesday, House Republicans unanimously decided to scrap their effort to place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee, a move that would leave lawmakers policing themselves. That move, announced late Monday night, drew swift pushback from government-watchdog groups, Democrats and some Republicans, who heard from angry constituents about the proposal.

President-elect Donald Trump, in tweets Tuesday mornings, questioned the timing of the move over other congressional priorities.

“It’s like a circular firing squad—our first day here and we’re passing around the handgun,” lamented Rep. Rod Blum (R., Iowa).

As criticism mounted Tuesday, Republicans decided midday to abandon the measure for now, though lawmakers said they would try to advance changes to the ethics watchdog later this year. Lawmakers have raised concerns over the board, including objections that it makes complaints against them public.

House Republicans meeting Monday night had approved, by a 119-74 vote, the amendment from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) to a package of new House rules. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) had objected to the amendment, urging a bipartisan approach to changing the office.

It wasn’t clear that the rules package would have had the votes to pass, given that it was likely to garner no support from Democrats, and some Republicans objected to the ethics amendment.

In two tweets Tuesday morning, Mr. Trump seemed to express sympathy with the move on its merits, calling the watchdog office “unfair.” But he said, “With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it…may be, their number one act and priority.” He added that he would prefer a focus on issues “of far greater importance!”

The Office of Congressional Ethics serves as the chamber’s independent ethics watchdog by reviewing allegations against House members and staff. It is governed by an eight-person board of private citizens who don’t work for the government...

Still more.

Do Patients Have a Right to Secretly Record Doctors While They're Under Anesthesia for Surgery?

My first response when I saw this story on Twitter was "Never secretly record your surgery!"

Mainly, you might hear some stuff you might not like. I mean, the doctors and the nurses, etc., are essentially on the job, and they might say some politically incorrect things, if not some things even disrespectful to the patient herself.

In any case, at Althouse, "'Patient secretly recorded doctors as they operated on her. Should she be so distressed by what she heard?'":

I don't know about that.

But it occurred to me: Why aren't we entitled to a recording of what is said around our body when we're under anesthesia? Why should you have to sneak a recording device into your ponytail? You have to be knocked out for the surgery, and all these people have access to your vulnerable body, why shouldn't you have a right to use an artificial device to do what your senses would normally do — monitor what's happening to you? Do the doctors and nurses have an interest in having a private conversation around your body? I'd say you have the greater interest in finding out what's happening to you when you're unconscious. Anyone who wants to make a recording should be able to do it openly. You wouldn't need to take any additional steps to improve the "bedside manner" of doctors and nurses...

Keep reading.

'Before you decide to go to war on the Internet, first consider the fate of Max Read...'

Following-up up on "Nick Denton's Gawker Removes Gay-Shaming Post About Condé Nast CFO."

GamerGate's not my bailiwick, although it's interesting as hell.

So don't miss this excellent entry from the indubitable Robert Stacy McCain, at the Other McCain, "Congratulations, ‘Dishonest Fascists’ — #GamerGate Destroys Max Read":

“Never underestimate your enemy,” is a maxim of military strategy. Before you decide to go to war on the Internet, first consider the fate of Max Read, who was riding high as editor of Gawker until he decided that insulting #GamerGate was a smart move. He chose poorly.

Custer at Little Bighorn, the French at Dien Bien Phu — military history offers many parallels to Max Read’s fateful miscalculation, but perhaps the best would be Gen. John Sedgwick. On May 9, 1864, Sedgwick was directing the placement of Union artillery near Spotsylvania, Virginia. Annoyed that his men were ducking to avoid fire from Confederate sharpshooters a thousand yards away, he said: “Why are you dodging like this? They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” A moment later, Sedgwick was killed by a bullet from one of the Confederates whose marksmanship he had disparaged. Hubris, meet nemesis.

The resignation Monday of Max Read as editor-in-chief of Gawker, along with his executive editor Tommy Craggs, will not likely be interpreted by major media as a vindication of #GamerGate, because most of the media share the same shallow prejudice that led Read to declare his disdain for #GamerGate as “a small, contemptible crusade . . . of dedicated anti-feminist internet trolls.” Well, he who laughs last, et cetera...

Keep reading.

Plus, a pretty good inside scoop at the New York Observer, "Is Gawker Destroying Itself From the Inside? Let’s Hope So."

And from Gabriel Sherman, at New York Magazine, "Nick Denton had been at odds with Executive Editor Tommy Craggs over company's long-term direction, with Denton telling Craggs that Gawker was 'too mean'." (Via Mediagazer.)

BONUS: From Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, "THE DAY GAWKER TORE ITSELF APART, from Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast, who also formerly worked for Condé Nast, whose CFO’s life was upended by Gawker last week..."

Executive Editor Tommy Craggs and Editor-in-Chief Max Read Resign from Gawker; Craggs Says Advertisers Threatened to Pull Out Over Gay Escort Story

At the Hollywood Reporter, "Gawker Editor-In-Chief Resigns After Controversial Post Gets Take Down." (Via Mediagazer.)

Also at the Wrap, "Gawker Executive Editor and Editor-in-Chief Both Resign After Gay Porn Story Fiasco

."In memos sent to staff and management, Craggs and Read said an unprecedented breach of the firewall between Gawker’s business and editorial side had occurred, and they could no longer operate at the company.

“On Friday a post was deleted from Gawker over the strenuous objections of Tommy and myself, as well as the entire staff of executive editors,” Read wrote in a memo to Gawker’s partnership group. “That this post was deleted at all is an absolute surrender of Gawker’s claim to ‘radical transparency'; that non-editorial business executives were given a vote in the decision to remove it is an unacceptable and unprecedented breach of the editorial firewall, and turns Gawker’s claim to be the world’s largest independent media company into, essentially, a joke.”

That's a huge aggregation at Mediagazer, for good reason.

And ICYMI, at the Other McCain, "Web Site Everybody Hates Reminds Everybody Why We Hate Them," and "The #GamerGate vs. Gawker War."

PREVIOUSLY: "Nick Denton's Gawker Removes Gay-Shaming Post About Condé Nast CFO."

Nick Denton's Gawker Removes Gay-Shaming Post About Condé Nast CFO

Here's Nick Denton's entry on the removal of the post, "Taking a post down..."

The link goes to Memeorandum, so it's safe.

I read an archived version of the Gawker piece last night, tweeted by Christina Hoff Sommers, "Here is a link to the vicious Gawker story--Archived version. It won't generate clicks for the depraved editors..."

The revulsion is universal.

ADDED: At the Other McCain, "Web Site Everybody Hates Reminds Everybody Why We Hate Them."

And at AoSHQ, "Gawker Staff Smears Feces On Itself, Boards a Schoolbus Loaded With Gasoline and Napalm, Then Intentionally Drives That Schoolbus Into a Cargo Train Transporting Toxic Waste and Retarded Clowns."

43 Dartmouth Students Suspected of Cheating In Ethics Class Designed for Athletes

Ethics schmethics!

At Instapundit, lol.

Los Angeles Times Fires Investigative Reporter Jason Felch

The dude's a veteran reporter, having worked for the Times since 2004.

See, "Editor's note: The Times acknowledges errors in three articles about Occidental College's reporting of sexual assault allegations" (via Mediagazer):

The Times regrets the errors in the articles. Separately, as they began looking into the complaint, Times editors learned from the author of the articles, staff writer Jason Felch, that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with someone who was a source for the Dec. 7 story and others Felch had written about Occidental's handling of sexual assault allegations. Felch acknowledged that after the relationship ended, he continued to use the person as a source for future articles.

Times Editor Davan Maharaj dismissed Felch on Friday. Maharaj said the inappropriate relationship with a source and the failure to disclose it earlier constituted "a professional lapse of the kind that no news organization can tolerate."

He added: "Our credibility depends on our being a neutral, unbiased source of information — in appearance as well as in fact."

Ethically Loose

Via the Looking Spoon, "The Only Response Needed For Anyone Questioning the 'Ethics' of a Republican Investigating Obama..."

PREVIOUSLY: "Jim Geraghty Destroys David Plouffe With One Tweet."