Melania Trump plagiarism?

Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 10 months ago to Politics
74 comments | Share | Flag

One of the more difficult aspects of being a professor is dealing with plagiarism issues. I ask you to compare Michelle Obama's and Melania Trump's speeches, and decide for yourself. Be objective.

For your information, many professors require students to submit their work electronically so that it can be checked for plagiarism via turnitin.com. While such software checks do check for similarities in words and phrases, the analysis that the software performs does not give proper credit to the student when the student does give proper attribution.

If Mrs. Trump were taking a class from you, would she pass or fail, after last night?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I went to college to LEARN, not to get a degree. I dont even know where my degree is at this point (probably some dinosaur ate it...). Today I think people just want the paper degree, and could care less about actually learning something they can USE in life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I thought Michelle Obama was a back up singer for the Supremes rock group. No class at all. But one would expect from the wife of Obama himself. He has no class.
    I have to give Trumps wife one thing. She was gutsy to get up there and give a speech not even in her native language. Its no wonder why she might have wanted some help writing it.

    As to the content, she just wanted to give the people there an idea of what Trump is like as a person when not in the political arena being pounded on from ALL sides by competitors and media.

    Trump is a lot stronger than I am. I would have told everyone to fu$% off long ago and forgotten about the job of president for good.

    Interestingly enough, I thought his son Don Jr and particularly Ivanka are really pretty cool. Maybe THEY should run, particularly Ivanka
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 7 years, 10 months ago
    The fog of politics can be as bad as the fog of war. If it is to be believed the speech writer has accepted full responsibility for the unreferenced "quote". I wonder if anyone has compared Michelle's speech with Jackie Kennedy's in 1960.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will not disagree with what you said. However, plagiarists fail to acknowledge the value of the thoughts and actions of those who came before them. It is anti-thought and violates Objectivist principles in so many ways.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps the problem with that is the way the colleges are run. I went to MIT, and copying someone elses work wouldnt have gotten me anywhere. The whole purpose of labs should be to learn, not to simply get some paper degree like it is now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you want to hear really good speeches, check out Hitler. Complaining about Trumps wife is really unfair. She was willing to do more than I would have, and probably you too. Get up in front of thousands of people in person and millions on TV and give a speech in a 4th or 5th learned language. I think it was a gutsy thing to do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 10 months ago
    The media is always looking for some way to denigrate Trump. I am so tired of this crap. They let Hillary skate and they convict Trump. I say to the media- to hell with you.
    Here is the WIFE of a CANDIDATE, who is NOT a politician, whose 4th or 5th language is english, isnt a polished speaker, and probably had NO idea of what Michelle Obama said (who cares about what Michelle Obama said anyway), and probably got help writing the speech from one of the thousands of speechwriters out there that had better use of the english language--- and she gets pounded???

    She gave a good speech and conveyed the ideas she wanted to get across.

    And they they pound on Trump for NOT using pre-prepared speeches.

    I would think that Michelle Obama might have easily spouted words that SHE heard somewhere. People give speeches every day, and it becomes harder and harder to know what was said by who and when.

    Its completely off the point anyway. We want a president who will effectively perform the jog, and thats what should be talked about. Not this nonsense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 10 months ago
    Yesterday it came out out that Melania's speech writer took the blame.
    College students do not have other people do their paperwork that they may or may not have to recite from before the class. At least the honest ones don't.
    Now if colleges allowed students to pick people to do their paperwork, I might give Melania a F for choosing a lousy writer.
    Or in real life I guess I could give the Trump campaign a F for hiring a specific lousy speech writer.
    Maybe I would also give Trump and F for not accepting the speech writer's resignation, but I don't know what was entirely behind all that.
    All in all, I hate to see any blown opportunity for beating the evil hag, though I heard one pundit say that this avoidable mess won't affect anyone's vote at this point.
    Well, I don't know about that. I imagine there are independents out there with willy-nilly thought processes that would make Ayn Rand's head hurt due to talking to them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jhagen 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly! My first thought was that the speech writer was a lib plant. Then started thinking your thoughts - was this setup so that if the talking heads started criticizing the speech, they could then say, "Hey, you thought it was brilliant when the dem said it. You've just demonstrated you lake of objectivity." Or... (fill in the blank).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    it is a sad state of affairs. The time it takes to hunt down anothers' work is time one could spend on something original
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Transcript of Elizavbeth Dole's Convention speech. 1996


    "You have heard Condoleeza Rice speak eloquently of America’s place in the world.

    I, too, wish to address our nation’s security tonight.

    I speak not of military weapons, but of moral ones, of the defense of values as well as territory.

    Long before there was an American dream, there was a dream of America as liberty’s home and refuge.

    It was for this, that a million heroes fought and bled and died.

    Not alone to protect land on a map, much as they might cherish their home and hearth; nor to encroach on other lands or menace other peoples, or impose our way of life on anyone — but merely, heroically, to ensure freedom’s survival in a hostile world.

    Let us be clear: the success of freedom can never be measured in material terms alone.

    For one day, each of us will be held to account not for the money we made, but for the difference we made.

    Not for the worldly status we may have enjoyed, but for the stewardship we provided.

    Freedom empowers the heart.

    It levels walls and shatters ceilings — including glass ceilings.

    Ladies and gentlemen, in my eight years as President of the American Red Cross, I saw things that will haunt me the rest of my life — the evil that humans can inflict on one another — saw it in the dim eyes of starving children in Somalia and in the paralyzing grief of parents in Oklahoma City.

    But I have also been uplifted by the extraordinary power of the American heart — by those armies of compassion, who are willing to cross town or cross the globe to minister to those they’ve never met and will never see again.

    People who go where government cannot, and others will not, who carry our values of peace and democracy around the world, putting service before self. Such kindness and generosity are not legislated by any Congress.

    They arise from faith, neighborliness, and yes, occasional saintliness.

    Indeed, I learned long ago that you don’t have to be a missionary to be filled with a sense of mission.

    The 20th century was America’s century—not because of our power, but because of our purpose.

    Today, millions of Americans — of both parties and of no party — are seeking a politics of purpose.

    The next President of the United States must defend both America’s interests and America’s ideals.

    No one, no one understands this better than Governor George W. Bush!

    In an era of rampant cynicism and indifference toward government, he is determined to bring civility to the public square and restore our pride in our leaders.

    Throughout his career, he has appealed to the best in people, bridging our differences rather than exploiting them.

    As president, he will put an end to the smash-mouth politics of recent years and to the name-calling that tarnishes our trust and alienates so many real people whose real problems can never be solved in a focus group or soothed by a spin-doctor.

    George W. Bush will be a different kind of leader!

    He will use words to inspire, not inflame.

    He will move beyond the stale labels and sterile confrontations that all too often divide the American family.

    And, make no mistake, there are divisions in liberty’s home.

    Tonight too many of our neighbors are hurting.

    At a time of economic prosperity, there are too many American homes without hope — too many street corners where despair reigns — too many classrooms where children are being left behind.

    Like any good conservative, Governor Bush deplores waste — above all else, wasted lives.

    He will repair the frayed strands of community.

    And he knows that sometimes the best way to do this is through non-profits, businesses, civic and religious groups, schools and charities.

    George W. Bush understands there is power — and there is a higher power.

    He knows there is no strength without integrity; no security apart from strong character.

    For these timeless values form our first line of defense.

    Let this be our mission and our mandate — to defend frontiers of the heart, armed with faith and steeled by conviction.

    Today, America resembles nothing so much as Joseph’s many-colored coat, and in our diversity lies our strength.

    With that strength comes a matching responsibility — to make wrong into right … hope into reality … in the old, biblical words, to “let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

    Here, my friends, is the standard we raise.

    This is the faith of our fathers and mothers, the American cause we hold sacred, our politics of purpose.

    In the words of that great hymn:

    America! America!

    May God thy gold refine

    Till all success be nobleness

    And every gain divine!

    May God bless us in this great endeavor.

    And may God bless America.


    Sponsored Stories
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All forms of plagiarism you mention do occur. Usually the poor reports are from those who ... show up to lab late! What a shock!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I found out later that both Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Trump used the same phrasing as Mrs. Elizabeth Dole.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
    Did they sue? No? Then it isn't close enouogh.

    The questions for these excellent goals are why one failed to attain them while the other has probably got fourr years to prove their worth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
    I think it's plagiarism but about something very unimportant. The candidate's spouse speaks. It's not that important; of course she/he needs to say the candidate is a great person. Then if she makes some misstep like this, it's an opportunity schadenfreude. I don't like that spirit.

    The plagiarism was so blatant, I wonder if one of the speech writers, or possibly even Donald or Melania Trump, put the copied language in the speech for some strategic reasons: to get the subject onto a mini-scandal instead of something else, to undermine secretly the campaign, or to make those supporters who felt not so smart in school sympathize with the Trump family as underdogs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wanderer 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Does the plagiarism in lab reports problem have to do with students not actually doing the lab or, students doing the lab work badly and faking the reports or, are they doing the work, getting the results and choosing the easy route of copying a common lab report?

    Allow me to suggest what may not be a viable solution: Make your students video themselves doing the labs and writing the reports. They video themselves doing everything else, including things they're not supposed to do, why not video themselves doing something they're supposed to do? Then have them hand the low res video in with their work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Combating plagiarism and cheating is challenging. Changing lab assignments enough to catch the cheaters is not difficult, but the effort required to do so must be balanced against productivity in our other endeavors. Usually a reference to AS is sufficient: "No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever." It is one of my easy lead-ins toward the values embodied in Galt's Gulch. However, there are times when students transgress that must be dealt with. This is what raises my blood pressure.

    As for adsorption of methane, I do know some professors who work in this area. Certainly the one who is the leading expert is Omar Yaghi.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content...

    Amoco (now part of BP) had a really solid group working on this in the late 1980s and early 1990s led by Rodney Mieville. Rodney passed away in 2013.

    See p. 591 and the articles that follow in
    https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/prepr...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wanderer 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How do you combat it? Can you change your lab assignments enough to force them to do original work?

    Efficient adsorbtion of methane presents us with a big market. CNG vessels are expensive and a bit dangerous and hold limited volumes. Vessels capable of adsorbing methane could make CNG a much more popular motor fuel since, per BTU methane is much cheaper than gasoline.

    Any thoughts? Anyone in your department working in that area? If you think it's possible, we might get state funding for research since, low natural gas prices are crimping lots of state budgets.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wanderer 7 years, 10 months ago
    If she'd attributed that part of her speech to Michelle Obama I'd have graded her mediocre. Since she didn't attribute her speech to its source, I'd make her do it over and, this time, be 100% original.

    I realize people liked the speech when Obama gave it but, I didn't really care for it. It didn't get any better the second time around. Michelle Obama has the better voice and, is the better public speaker. Melania Trump's voice isn't as good and, perhaps since she's not speaking in her native tongue, her speech is less strong, more halting.

    I didn't think schools of science would be so at risk for this or, are you considering their basic studies and humanities courses, which would now have to be nightmares for teachers. Hell, they can call up Shakespeare on their smart watches now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 10 months ago
    I think the more important issue is what they said and whether it is true or just political feel good rubbish designed to make them appear to be similar to the wider audience whose votes they covet.
    Michele definitely said what she knew their wider audience would approve of, regardless of how false the content. (And it was largely a pack of lies.) I don't know Melania's history, so she may have been speaking the truth, too.
    Michele flunks on ethical grounds, the lying whore.
    Virtually none of the scum who write speeches today have any ethics so why should we expect them to create original content? Flunk the speech writers.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo