I predicted in Copyright Infringement (December 2023) that Harvard would have a new president in 2024. There is perhaps little that any personality can do to stay the course under the withering pressure that is the modern news cycle. There are lessons in the Harvard situation, and with some introspection, we can all likely learn from the mistakes of others.
The first, and most obvious, lesson is that stealing the work of others is inappropriate. On that foundation, it is clear that plagiarism exists in the business world. Quetext cites various examples, provides context, and discusses reactions. One key point it makes is that citation is necessary even when the source of thought or quotation is something else you personally wrote previously. In that context, the more you write, the greater the potential today's writing will reference and incorporate previous writing.
I have produced more than 1,700 blog posts, and dozens of published articles, and have written two books. There will be an overlap between my materials. Though today's work may sound like prior work, one might argue over whether anything in particular should be attributed or whether it is merely similar. This will be a challenge for anyone producing content. And for those with less chronological challenge, trust me when I tell you that the challenge of remembering things increases with each tick of the second hand.
The second lesson is that computers and software are both pervasive and invasive. I have been blogging about the technological influences in our lives for a decade. See Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014). The simple fact is that these machines are gaining ability.
I wrote a post, article, or something at some point about my time clerking in the defense industry eons ago. That bit was about software, evolution, and progress. I wanted to cite that here, but cannot find that piece. I have tried internal searches, and Internet searches, and found nothing. So, perhaps I did not write it, but meant to? Well, I forego further discussion of that here since I cannot cite my prior work appropriately. But, perhaps in the age of AI, finding plagiarism is not that difficult? It is illustrative of the challenge that remains despite technology.
The bigger lesson for those in the community of workers' compensation and conflict is that we are each subject to bias and its challenges. We will confront fallacies of thinking. We will persistently face instances in which there is disagreement and dissonance. We will find success in our ability to recognize that in situations, opponents, and ourselves. Visual Capitalist provides a picture that is worth a thousand words on bias, and without trying to count it makes it appear that there is a multitude of potential biases.
Those impact how we perceive our world, each other, and situations. We would all do well to study the potential of bias in our day-to-day. But, more on that another day.
Owen Williamson at the University of Texas has published a "Master List of Logical Fallacies" that is a must-read for anyone in the business of business (or frankly anyone that is anything, anywhere). Yes, Virginia, the world is larger than workers' compensation ("Virginia" is a reference to a legend of an 1897 response by a newspaper person to a child, see Library of Congress for context).
The point, however, is that we are all subject to bias in our thoughts. Those can lead us to predictability and can challenge our decision-making ability. Fallacies in our analysis impact both argument and response. Which ones could be of import in our recent lessons from Harvard?
Some might see evidence of the "A Priori Argument." They might argue that plagiarism is not wrong. They could cling to a "pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse, 'fact' or conclusion" that President Gay is being persecuted. In pursuit of supporting that belief, the arguer then "search(es) for any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it." There are many examples of this in the news. Writers point out that others have plagiarized ("but mom, all the cool kids are doing it"). People claim that President Gay is being singled out. Some contend that her historic status should excuse all. Others ask simply "Did she steal other people's intellectual property?" What is the best analysis?
One might consider the "Actions have Consequences" fallacy. We are steered here to focus on "consequence" and to defer reference to words like "punishment or penalty." The Texas article notes that this is "A corrupt argument from ethos," in which there is deference to or acceptance of consequences being "inevitable or unavoidable." That is, of course, not true. The world bears constant witness to a raft of people who never meet real consequences for their (in)actions. Doing wrong does not inevitably lead to "consequence." Anyone who believes otherwise is ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence.
"Alternative Truth" may also be worthy of our attention. This is a "newly-famous contemporary fallacy of logos." This is illustrated in "people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." In the persistent debate of President Gay, we see this. Even in her resignation speech, there are notable examples one might cite. In our modern society, there is a segment of distractionists who are capable of wholly ignoring that events or statements happened. Through deflection or disillusion, they create their own facts, consciously or not. How do you deal with an adversary that will not (can not?) admit that the "sky is blue, water is wet" (The Last Boy Scout, Geffen Pictures, 1991).
How about the "Appeal to Closure?" are we led to resolution, compromise, or misled by the desire for an end. Is there value in ending a debate, other than our weariness of the dispute, debate, or uncertainty? Are we led to the end by the merits, the facts, or merely our weariness? Will America confront the allegations that stealing the work of others is rampant or at least frequent? Or, will we find "Closure" in the Harvard outcome and let the raft of other plagiarists and pretenders off the hook? Some contend plagiarism is rampant in the American higher education environment.
Perhaps my premise above, the "overlap" (in quotes here because it is a repeat of another of my thoughts, expressed before, see above) is an "Appeal to Nature?" Maybe we are hard-wired to appropriate or repeat our own material. I am no fan of plagiarism, but I do struggle with the conclusion that I could plagiarise myself. It is absurd to believe that anyone could remember each prior expression, and I struggle to find materials I know I have previously written.
Is there an "Appeal to Pity" at work? Are we "root(ing) for the underdog” in our analysis? Are we drawn to "the way it has always been," or the "Appeal to Tradition?" Are we alternatively drawn to the light of what is new, hip, or modern with the "Appeal to Novelty?" Are we drawn to "Appeasement" in our decisions? Are we ignorant or appearing so? Do our arguments display support and analysis or avoidance and "Whataboutism?" Are we about our emotion, the "Argument from Incredulity?" Each of these fallacies presents challenges in day-to-day interaction. But how about in our negotiations and perceptions of conflict specifically? These deserve study, as do many more cited by Professor Williamson.
But in the Harvard instance, we likely see evidence of the "Argument from Inertia." The old saying is "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging" (Will Rogers). It is a mistake to keep charging forward regardless of what you are hearing. Is there evidence? When the Harvard leadership was shown an instance of alleged plagiarism, perhaps it was not persuasive (or just not pervasive?). There is a tendency to "stay the course." But, then the second allegation, the third, etc. How many dozen allegations does it take before one's faith and inertia are paused? Once committed to a course, we have a tendency to stick to it. But the fact is, evidence "may come that must give us pause" (Billy Shakespear, Hamlet, 1599-1601). Did this fallacy hobble the university leadership?
However, we have to beware of the "Bandwagon Fallacy" in that regard. Just because the "groupthink" begins does not mean we have to jump on that "bandwagon." Remember that "the one who follows the crowd will usually go no further than the crowd." (Francis Phillip Wernig). As allegations mounted, likely there was a first Harvard Board member who said "Perhaps this __th allegation of plagiarism should cause us to re-think our earlier expression of undying and perpetual support for our President." The inertial fallacy says stay the course, and the "bandwagon fallacy" seems to say we all stick together and to the course. But, one defects, then another, and soon the bandwagon fallacy might lead each Board member to a new course of "this (alleged) plagiarist needs to go."
The discussion provided by Owen Williamson at University of Texas is far longer than could be addressed here (116 fallacies discussed). But, with an eye to decision-making, everyone involved in the world of human interaction would be well served to read the entire publication. How do you react to information? How do you convey thoughts? What fallacies are behind the statements of others or are challenging you? What fallacies are you engaging in your efforts to make your point and achieve your outcome?
In the end, it is perhaps sad that Harvard will get a new president. Should the Board have vetted the last one more thoroughly? Should the Board have investigated more thoroughly when the first allegation was received? (See "Blind Loyalty" or "Blood is thicker than water") Should the Board have hesitated in their rousing and hearty December endorsement? Should Harvard have threatened the messengers (accusers) with legal action before knowing all the facts?
There are valid questions. A college course could be built around the challenges and failures of this situation. The failures of Harvard leadership will likely be cited in many future instances. Unfortunately, it appears that there are multiple examples of such managerial and integrity failures. What does the outcome do to reputation? How could the process be improved? What can we all learn about human nature, bias, and fallacy in the process?
What fallacy would it be to suggest that we should not feel too sorry for President Gay? Notably, ABC News reports that following her resignation as President, she will now return to being tenured faculty at Harvard, and will be paid $900,000 annually. One wonders, perhaps, how many instances of plagiarism it would take to be fired from a position as a college professor at such an institution and pay scale? The Harvard Crimson says there have been at least 40 allegations against Dr. Gay. The New York Times suggests that the volume of allegations is higher.
Why is plagiarism present in American education? That would make for an interesting discussion. Some might believe it is present because it is excused and ignored. Inside Higher Education presents a more troubling explanation that is essentially an indictment of education writ large. In the drive for other goals (enrollment, athletics, etc.) has education abandoned the core values and roots?
Following on from my prediction about President Gay being replaced, I predict there will be more plagiarism fallout in 2024. AI, software, and more will conspire to identify and publicize plagiarism. There will be more people accused, more coverage, and more discussions. There will be impacts on people, institutions, and our faith. There will be debate about whether offenders are "getting a pass" for whatever reason. There will be statements that exhibit fallacies, bias, and worse.
In the grander scheme, however, the lessons for us all are in the tendencies we have to engage in and to believe in fallacies. The topic bears our attention and our study.
