1.媒體來源: 紐約時報
2.完整新聞標題/內文:
Montana Democrat’s Thesis Presented Others’ Work as His Own
Senator John Walsh of Montana Confronts Questions of Plagiarism
WASHINGTON — Democrats were thrilled when John Walsh of Montana was
appointed to the United States Senate in February. A decorated veteran of the
Iraq war and former adjutant general of his state’s National Guard, Mr.
Walsh offered the Democratic Party something it frequently lacks: a seasoned
military man.
On the campaign trail this year, Mr. Walsh, 53, has made his military service
a main selling point. Still wearing his hair close-cropped, he notes he was
targeted for killing by Iraqi militants and says his time in uniform informs
his views on a range of issues.
But one of the highest-profile credentials of Mr. Walsh’s 33-year military
career appears to have been improperly attained. An examination of the final
paper required for Mr. Walsh’s master’s degree from the United States Army
War College indicates the senator appropriated at least a quarter of his
thesis on American Middle East policy from other authors’ works, with no
attribution.
Mr. Walsh completed the paper, what the War College calls a “strategy
research project,” to earn his degree in 2007, when he was 46. The sources
of the material he presents as his own include academic papers, policy
journal essays and books that are almost all available online.
Continue reading the main story
INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC
How Senator John Walsh Plagiarized a Final Paper
A line-by-line analysis of Mr. Walsh’s master’s thesis shows that he took
much of it from other sources without giving them credit
Most strikingly, each of the six recommendations Mr. Walsh laid out at the
conclusion of his 14-page paper, titled “The Case for Democracy as a Long
Term National Strategy,” is taken nearly word-for-word without attribution
from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace document on the same topic.
In his third recommendation, for example, Mr. Walsh writes: “Democracy
promoters need to engage as much as possible in a dialogue with a wide cross
section of influential elites: mainstream academics, journalists, moderate
Islamists, and members of the professional associations who play a political
role in some Arab countries, rather than only the narrow world of westernized
democracy and human rights advocates.”
The same exact sentence appears on the sixth page of a 2002 Carnegie paper
written by four scholars at the research institute. In all, Mr. Walsh’s
recommendations section runs to more than 800 words, nearly all of it taken
verbatim from the Carnegie paper, without any footnote or reference to it. In
addition, significant portions of the language in Mr. Walsh’s paper can be
found in a 1998 essay by a scholar at the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, a research institute at Harvard.
For example, Mr. Walsh writes: “The United States will have an interest in
promoting democracy because further democratization enhances the lives of
citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international
system. To the extent that Americans care about citizens of other countries
and international peace, they will see benefits from the continued spread of
democracy.”
The Harvard paper, written in 1998 by Sean M. Lynn-Jones, a scholar at the
Belfer Center, includes the same two sentences.
Mr. Walsh does not footnote or cite Mr. Lynn-Jones’s essay, titled “Why the
United States Should Spread Democracy,” anywhere in his paper.
Both the Carnegie and Harvard papers are easily accessible on the Internet.
In an interview outside his Capitol Hill office on Tuesday, after he was
presented with multiple examples of identical passages from his paper and the
Carnegie and Harvard essays, Mr. Walsh said he did not believe he had done
anything wrong.
“I didn’t do anything intentional here,” he said, adding that he did not
recall using the Carnegie and Harvard sources.
Asked directly if he had plagiarized, he responded: “I don’t believe I did,
no.”
On Wednesday, a campaign aide for Mr. Walsh did not contest the plagiarism
but suggested that it be viewed in the context of the senator’s long career.
She said Mr. Walsh was going through a difficult period at the time he wrote
the paper, noting that one of the members of his unit from Iraq had committed
suicide in 2007, weeks before it was due.
The aide said Mr. Walsh, who served in Iraq from November 2004 to November
2005, “dealt with the experience of post-deployment,” but acknowledged he
had not sought treatment.
The master’s degree in strategic studies from the War College has benefited
Mr. Walsh’s career: In a military evaluation the year after Mr. Walsh
received it, his commander praised him for it, writing that he “leads his
peers and sets example in maintaining continuous military education and
training subjects pertinent to today’s leadership challenges.”
In September 2008, Mr. Walsh, a recipient of the Bronze Star, was appointed
adjutant general of Montana’s National Guard by the governor. A subsequent
military evaluation said his prospects for the post had been “bolstered” in
part by his degree from the War College.
Located in Carlisle, Pa., the Army War College is a coveted career stop for
ambitious officers, and its graduates since its 1901 founding include Dwight
D. Eisenhower, George Patton and Norman Schwarzkopf. As with most military
institutes, the War College emphasizes honor and integrity: Its current
student handbook states that plagiarism will result in disenrollment and that
discoveries of academic violations have led to degrees being rescinded and
names being scraped off the bronze plaques honoring graduates on campus.
“Sooner or later, academic dishonesty will be discovered,” the handbook,
known as the Communicative Arts Directive, warns.In 2012, Mr. Walsh stepped
down as the head of the state’s National Guard after winning his first bid
for elected office to become Montana’s lieutenant governor. From that
position, he was appointed to the Senate this year by Gov. Steve Bullock.
The Senate vacancy arose after President Obama nominated Max Baucus, the
veteran Democrat who planned to retire from Congress, to be ambassador to
China. Democrats hoped that installing Mr. Walsh in February would strengthen
the party’s position and efforts to retain the seat.
Mr. Walsh’s military record and centrist politics were seen as assets in the
independent-minded state, and, as an incumbent senator, he would be better
positioned to raise money for this fall’s election. Still, Mr. Walsh is
trailing Representative Steve Daines, his Republican opponent, strategists on
both sides say, and has trailed Mr. Daines in fund-raising.
Questions have previously been raised about Mr. Walsh’s résumé and
conduct, though they were comparatively minor.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that he was reprimanded in 2010 for using
his role as adjutant general to urge other guardsmen to join a private
advocacy group, the National Guard Association of the United States, in which
he was seeking a leadership role.
As a result he was denied a promotion from colonel to general, he
acknowledged in January. In response to the matter, Mr. Walsh released about
400 pages of his military records, which detailed his service awards and was
full of effusive praise from his commanding officers.
There has also been a discrepancy about where Mr. Walsh earned his
undergraduate degree. He was listed in the biographical directory of Congress
as having graduated in 1990 from the University at Albany, State University
of New York, but actually earned his bachelor of science from what was then
known as Regents College, an adult learning institute that issued degrees
under the umbrella of the University of the State of New York.
Mr. Walsh changed the listing after the newspaper Roll Call ran an article
about the matter, but did not offer an explanation publicly.The breadth of
Mr. Walsh’s apparent plagiarism, however, is startling — and rivaled by few
other examples in recent political history. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of
Kentucky, was found last year to have presented the work of others as his own
in a newspaper opinion article, a book and speeches. And Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr. dropped his 1988 presidential bid when it was revealed
that in campaign speeches he had used language similar to that of the British
Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without attributing the remarks.
Mr. Walsh appears to have gone considerably further.
About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or
extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or
Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is
attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or
almost exact — language without quotation marks.
The senator included 96 footnotes in his paper, but many of them only
illustrate this troubling pattern. In repeated instances, Mr. Walsh uses the
language of others with no quotation marks, but footnotes the source from
which the material came. In other cases, the passages appear in his paper
with a word or two changed, but are otherwise identical to the authors’
language.
For example, in the first paragraph of his paper, Mr. Walsh writes of
President George W. Bush: “During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush and
his advisors made it clear that they favored great-power realism over
idealistic notions such as nation building or democracy promotion.”
At the end of this sentence, which Mr. Walsh included without quotation
marks, he footnoted a reference to a 2003 article in Foreign Affairs by
Thomas Carothers, a prominent and highly credentialed foreign policy expert.
Mr. Carothers’ essay read: “During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush and
his advisers had made it clear that they favored great-power realism over
idealistic notions such as nation building or democracy promotion.”
The only difference is that Mr. Walsh wrote “advisors” rather than “
advisers” and did not use “had,” as Mr. Carothers did in his article.
In other instances, Mr. Walsh swaps a synonym for a word in the original
document, and condenses sentences.
He writes on his second page: “There are deep disagreements about the
appropriate theoretical framework, about whether democracy is simply an
institutional arrangement for choosing rulers or an end in itself, about how
to measure and evaluate democracy, and about the importance of prerequisites
for democracy.
The footnote at the end of this sentence, presented without quotation marks
in Mr. Walsh’s paper, is to a chapter by Robert L. Rothstein in a 1995 book
of essays, “Democracy, War, and Peace in the Middle East.”
Mr. Rothstein’s sentence is slightly longer and uses “profound” rather
than “deep,” but is otherwise identical.
Such copying of a footnoted source without quotation marks is specifically
prohibited in the War College’s handbook.
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
156
COMMENTS
“Copying a segment of another’s work word for word, then conveniently ‘
forgetting’ to include quotation marks, but ‘remembering’ to cite the
source,” is described as the second example of academic fraud in the
handbook.
The first is: “Directly quoting another author’s work without giving proper
credit to the author.”
“Plagiarism,” the handbook notes, “is a serious form of cheating that
carries serious consequences.”
Nick Corasaniti and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
來自華盛頓-對於當來自美國蒙大拿州的約翰沃爾什在二月時被任命為參議院議員時,民主
黨感到非常欣喜。作為一個從伊拉克戰爭老將以及國民警備隊的副指揮官，沃爾什先生是
民主黨中最缺乏的－一個具有專業軍事背景的政治家。
年值53歲的沃爾什在今年的競選活動中，以他的軍事背景做為主要賣點，始終頂著象徵軍
人的小平頭。在受到一系列的訪問中對於他在服役期間的問題，他提到他曾經是伊拉克武
裝恐怖分子的狙殺對象。
但沃爾什三十三年的軍事生涯中，最引人注目的一點卻備受爭議。從他在美國戰爭學院的
碩士畢業論文中發現，至少其中有四分之一以上的內容是從一個對於美國中東政策的參議
員的文章內容中節錄的，而且論文最後並沒有提到有引用該篇章。
沃爾什最終還是完成了論文＂戰略研究項目＂並且在2007年取得碩士學位，當年他46歲。
而他論文中的研究材料，幾乎都是統整自來自網路上可搜尋到的包含學術論文，政策期刊
和書籍。
更讓人值得注意的是，貫穿14頁論文中六個章節並奠定他且做為結論的"做為一個民主國
家的長期戰略案例"內容，竟然是從卡內基國際和平基金會中的在國際和平文件中，一字
不漏，連語句上的修飾都沒有的節錄進去。
舉個例子來說，他的第三個重要章節中提到：民主的推動者需要與更多元的具影響力的社
會精英進行對話，主流學者，記者，中產階級的伊斯蘭教徒，以及不同專業的協會成員，
比起西方的民主人權倡導這種狹隘的觀點，更能在阿拉伯國家發揮政治作用。
從一篇由四位學者共同撰寫的卡內基論文章中的第六頁，可以發現與上述例子完全相同的
句子。總而言之，沃爾什自己的觀點建議在論文中不超過800個字。幾乎大部分都是抄自
卡內基基金會的研究文章，但完全沒有提到有引用其內容的部分。此外，而其論文中的觀
點也可以在1998年的一位哈佛大學研究者在貝爾佛科學和國際事務研究中心發表的論文中
明顯的得到。
舉例來說，沃爾什先生寫道：美國致力於發展民主是基於民主能進一步保護其他國家國民
的生命，並且建立一個更完善的國際體系。而擴大美國人對於關心其他國家的國民和國際
和平，他們能借此看到民主發展的好處。
而哈佛大學的研究學者－錫恩林恩瓊斯在貝爾佛研究中心1998年發表的論文中也包含其中
兩句話。
而沃爾什也沒有下任何註腳在他論文中的任何地方提到關於錫恩林恩瓊斯的這篇題為＂美
國為什麼要民主的＂文章。
卡內基基金會跟哈佛大學兩者的學術論文在網路上都可以很容易的取得。
本周二在國會山莊辦公室他接受記者採訪，並承認了對於他的論文和上述兩篇論文中有多
處雷同之處的事實後，他表示並不覺得他在這件事情上有什麼錯誤。
他表示＂我並沒有做任何的蓄意行為＂，並補充到他完全不記得有參考卡內基跟哈佛的論
文資料。
而當記者直接問起他是否抄襲。他的回應是：不，我不相信我有。
在上周三，一位沃爾蛇的競選助理並沒有對抄襲一事做出反駁聲明她他建議此事應該從參
議員先生其漫長的事業生涯做為觀點來看。她說當沃爾什在撰寫論文時，人生正經歷一個
非常困難的時期，當時有一個從伊拉克的部隊成員在2007年自殺了，就在提交論文的
那段時間。
助理說沃爾什先生在2004年11月到2005年11月在伊拉克服役，並經歷戰後創傷症候群，＂
但她承認他沒有尋求治療＂
戰爭學院中的碩士學位有助於沃爾什先生的職業生涯:在論文發表一年後沃爾什先生收到
了一份軍事評估，他受到指揮官的表揚中寫道，他帶領著他的同僚並且對於的軍事訓練科
目及教育上的領導能力挑戰做了一個良好的示範。
在2008年9月，沃爾什獲得銅星勳章，並同時被任命為蒙大拿州的國民警備隊的副指揮官
。在軍事的評價中（這邊應該是指兵袋裡面的資料吧..)他的晉升有一部分是因為受到戰
爭學院碩士學位的影響。
對於那些具有雄心壯志的軍官位於美國賓州的陸軍戰爭學院是一個極為重要的目標。其中
的畢業生自1901年成立以來，包含艾森豪威爾，喬治巴頓和諾曼師瓦茲科普夫。與大多數
軍事院一樣，戰爭學院一樣強調其榮譽和尊嚴；目前的學生手冊內有規定一旦被發現有抄
襲事實，其學位會被註銷，並且在青銅匾額那表彰的優異畢業生，名字也會從上面刮除。
＂學術上造假，遲早會被發現＂這是2012年廣告年鑑上的一句警世名句，沃爾什先生辭去
了他在國民警備隊的職位，並參加了他人生的第一次公職選舉，擔任了蒙大拿州副州長的
職位。並且從那個位置被州長在今年任命為蒙州的參議員。
在歐巴馬總統提名包斯卡－一位民主黨老將將計畫退出國會擔任駐中國大使，使的參議院
出現空缺後，民主黨希望在二月將沃爾什送上參議院的位子能夠穩定席位並強化政黨的在
議院中的處境。
沃爾什的軍事生涯紀錄和中立派的政治色彩再搖擺州中顯得特別重要。做為現任參議員，
他將有更好的機會去為今年秋天的大選籌措資金。儘管如此，雙方的競選顧問都一致認為
沃爾什已經落後他的競選對手史帝芬代恩斯。
雖然先前已經提過了關於沃爾什的相關經歷和行為，但與接下來的相比之下他們已經是很
輕微的了。
在今年稍早，他被提到關於他在2010年擔任副指揮官時濫用職權，迫使其他警備兵去加入
一個私人的宣傳機構－國民警備隊協會，他在此機構中尋求擔任領導幹部的職位。
因此，他失去了從上校晉升為少將的機會，他承認在一月時他對此回應並且發布了一份大
約400頁左右的軍事備忘錄。裡面都是詳細記載了他各種服務的獎項，並充滿了他的軍事
幕僚對於他各種熱情的讚賞。
還有一點對於他過去大學學位的爭議性。他在國會議員的自傳募路中提到他過去畢業於紐
約州立大學奧爾巴尼分校。但是實際上他獲得的理學院學位在過去是攝影學院，並且只是
一個紐約州立大學的下轄的成人教育中心。
沃爾什先生在報紙將此事公開報導前改變了報導此事的文章，但他並沒有公開向大眾解釋
關於抄襲的事情。然而令人吃驚的是，在近年來其它政治歷史上的其它例子，去年共和黨
的肯塔基州參議員保羅蘭德被發現把一些報紙社論，書籍及演講變成自己的觀點。而副總
統小喬許Ｒ拜登也在1988S年競選總統的競選演說時，使用類似英國工黨領袖尼爾金諾克
的言論並沒有提到引用其觀點。
沃爾什先生比起上述兩位似乎更佳的全面進化。
關於在他的的論文材料或其他類似的來源有三分之一，如卡內基及哈佛的論文段落並沒有
寫出引用來源。而另外三分之一引用其它作者的文章但並沒有做適當的記號來做為其段落
做標記。
參議員在他的論文中註明了96處的註腳，但其中有很多只是提到文章來源，並沒有切確的
點出哪些段落是出自其他人的手比，而且除了更動一兩個隻字片語外其它都是相同的。
例如，在論文的第一段落，沃爾什先生寫道2000年的總統大選：布希總統和他的競選顧問
明確表示,他們贊成大國現實主義概念,如國家建設及民主發展。
這句話，沃爾什先生並沒有明確以註腳標示出是引用出自於外交事務處馬斯卡羅塞－一個
極度傑出的外交政策專家在2003年的文章。其原文是：在2000年總統大選中，布希總統和
他的顧問明確表示：他們對於理想主義的概念，如國家建設和民主促進的大國實現主義。
為一的區別是沃爾什先生寫的顧問advisors跟原文的adviser不同而且句子也少一個had。
在其它情況下，沃爾什先生也只是交換一些文句中的代名詞。
他著作中的第二頁＂民主是否只是一種選擇統治者貨其目的，有一些理論框架存在很深的
分歧。如何衡量和判別民主的先決條件在於制度上民主的重要性。
這句話並沒有提到任何註解，但其實是出自於羅伯特羅斯坦在1995年的散文"民主戰爭與
和平的中東中的其中一章
而羅斯坦的句子較於攏長，並且使用的是＂深刻＂並非＂深＂
但其它字巨基本上是一樣。
在戰爭學院中的手冊對於直接複製飲用的句子不加引號註腳源是明確記載完全禁止的。
手冊中記載的第二點是著抄襲其他文字工作者的文字，隨興的忘了＂引號＂
第一點是：引用其它作者的作品卻沒有給他們相當程度的報酬。
該手冊並指出＂抄襲＂是一種嚴重的作弊形式，並會造成嚴重的後果
3.新聞連結:
http://ppt.cc/Y8UF
4.備註:
政府官員學術造假，世界潮流正夯，人家還爽當繼續爽當國會議員唷
不負責 隨便翻翻，出錯也不用指正了 看看就好