EDITORIAL
Goodwin’s upcoming speech raises concerns
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin is scheduled to kick off the Bucknell Forum series on Sept. 30. It is surprising that Goodwin was invited to speak at the University despite the controversies surrounding her work.
According to an article titled “Doris Kearns Goodwin and the credibility gap” published in Forbes Magazine (Feb. 27, 2002), The Weekly Standard launched accusations of plagiarism against Goodwin, revealing that some sources in her 1987 bestseller “The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys” were unaccredited.
In 1987, author Lynne McTaggart filed a claim that Goodwin had borrowed passages from her work. However, Goodwin’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, paid for a settlement with McTaggart under a confidentiality agreement, The New York Times reported in an article titled “Historian says borrowing was wider than known” (Feb. 23, 2002).
Under the settlement, footnotes were eventually added to the book, but sentences Goodwin used verbatim from McTaggart’s book were never put in quotation marks, with McTaggart’s agreement, according to the article.
In the same article, Goodwin said that she “failed to acknowledge scores of quotations or close paraphrases from other authors” in addition to those originally in question in 1987.
In an institution that emphasizes academic integrity so highly, we are left wondering why Goodwin was the chosen speaker for a national series.
In an article in Time Magazine titled “How I caused that story” (Jan. 27, 2002), Goodwin referred to the incident as a “citation mistake.”
The Bucknell Student Handbook, however, lists “[using] a brief phrase exactly quoted from a source without putting it in quotation marks or indenting it, and citing it” as plagiarism, the consequences of which range from failing the assignment to expulsion from the University.
University professors take the initiative to ensure that students understand the value of academic integrity—the honor code is placed in our syllabi, discussed extensively during the first class of every semester and upheld rigidly throughout.
Then, exactly what message are we to take away from the task force’s decision to bring Goodwin on campus?
Does a couple of bestsellers really compensate for academic dishonesty?
Moreover, the decision to host a historian was made without consulting any faculty members from the history department. It is disconcerting that individuals that are most likely to provide the best insight into Goodwin’s scholarship were left out of the decision making process.
Perhaps before attempting to bring big names to campus, we should ensure that they uphold the core values of the University.
