Plagiarism, Culture, and the Future of the Academy

In the 1980s it was still possible to defend proudly and with impunity the traditional definition of plagiarism and the commonsensical delineation of scholarly standards and responsibilities. Take, for example, Peter Shaw’s 1982 essay on “Plagiary” in The American Scholar. His contentions and conclusions were simple and straightforward: that a plagiarist remains as Lord Chesterfield described him, “a man that steals other people’s thoughts and puts ’em off for his own”; that “literary critics and scholars must bear the responsibility to affirm that there is indeed such a thing as plagiarism and that they are capable of identifying it if necessary”; and that “the attempt to evade professional responsibility when a case of plagiarism arises only makes for further complications.”1 Thomas Mallon echoed these traditionalist views in Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism (1989).2 But the cultural climate has changed, even since the 1980s, and defenders of literary standards and contemners of plagiarism now stand in stark contrast to the writers, scholars, editors, and publishers who have abandoned their responsibility as critics and watchdogs, forgone the unpleasantness of upholding propriety, and opted instead for a kinder and gentler conception of plagiarism that facilitates life for pilferer and critic alike. According to this “new thinking” about literary theft, plagia-