To Steal or Not to Steal: That is the Question

Last week Chris Spence, the former Director of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), spoke publicly for the first time about his plagiarism scandal that led to his resignation last January. He bemoaned the aftermath of the situation as “soul-destroying” and a “living hell” (Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).
Of course Spence brought on the mess himself by stealing others’ academic research and/or writings in the first place, in his 1996 doctoral dissertation--his major academic work as a student--from the University of Toronto. Apparently the jury is still out on whether his Ph.D. will be revoked.
Admits Plagiarizing
Spence admits to using others’ research and writings and including them in his own dissertation without acknowledging where he got those words and passages. In other words, Spence pretended others' research and writings were his own, apparently believing he had found an easy way to get his doctorate. 
Selling Books
Ultimately, Spence’s mea culpa last week for his academic plagiarism in 1996 seemed flimsy. His main concern seemed to be garnering sympathy, and promoting two books he supposedly co-wrote with his two children--which apparently will be self-published and, presumably, sold, in the fall of 2013. Each book “contains an admission of his mistakes with plagiarism” (Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).
In light of the book promotion aspect of Spence's sympathy sessions with reporters last week, his motives were questionable at best. Was he really trying to atone for his plagiarism? Or was he using the newspaper interviews to cleverly promote the books he has written with his children? Presumably time will tell if these two books are plagiarized too.
The Great Pretender
These days Spence is still pretending. His claims of being too busy with other projects to do his dissertation in an ethical way, and blaming others for his mistakes, suggest he's pretending that his role in his own plagiarism, in his own doctoral dissertation, was minimal compared to others such as his assistant(s). 
As a result, Spence continues to display the poor judgment, lack of character, and lack of professionalism that got him into this quagmire in the first place by cheating and stealing others' research and writings and pretending they were his.
Thankfully, though, unlike Spence, most people with a Ph.D. earn it the old-fashioned way, through their own honesty, diligence, persistence, and hard work.
Limited or Total Responsibility?
Notably, despite Spence's admitted plagiarism in his dissertation, last week he seemed unable or unwilling to unequivocally take full responsibility for his academic theft. 
Curiously, while Spence said he wasn’t trying to blame others, and claimed to not have any excuses for stealing others’ work in his dissertation, he blamed others and made excuses anyway.

“I’m not looking to point fingers, but did I write everything? Absolutely not…When I look back at the blogs, the speeches, the presentations, I’m going to say that a large, large percentage, you had support to get some of that work done. But I recognize that I approved everything, I signed off on everything…I never really had the kind of time that you need to sit down and put pen to paper…But I don’t have any excuses. I apologize unreservedly and categorically. I should have known better” (Chris Spence, Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).

His Work

Sadly, by blaming others for his academic sins, Spence doesn't seem to realize or care that the proverbial buck stops with him as the stated author of his dissertation. He should have done everything possible to ensure the academic integrity of his dissertation and to protect the reputation of his university where he was studying.
Even if an assistant made mistakes, Spence should have ensured the errors were found and fixed before the dissertation was finalized. After all, the dissertation was his.
Blaming Others Backfired
Ironically, in blaming others and making other excuses, and minimizing his responsibility in this fiasco--presumably to make him look good--Spence actually makes himself look worse: small, petty, and lacking in character. Of course stealing others’ research and writings for his dissertation makes him seem that way too. Maybe this is just the way Chris Spence is, at heart, although he and his supporters don't want to believe that. 
Last week Spence had a good chance to show or convince the media, and by extension the public as well, that he really is honorable, despite his academic plagiarism from 1996. Yet, when he blamed subordinates who reported to him and made excuses--even though he claimed to not be doing that--perhaps he really did show his true colors.
Academic Supervisor?
As a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto in 1996 presumably Spence would have had an academic supervisor—likely a full-time faculty professor. Presumably, that professor would have guided Spence through the dissertation process, editing and approving the work at various stages before Spence had his examination to either pass or fail, and receive his Ph.D. or not.
Did Spence’s academic supervisor not detect any irregularities during the writing and research process? Did Spence's academic supervisor notice discrepancies such as possible plagiarism and were they brought to Spence's attention? Did Spence ignore a senior professor's advice to not plagiarize?
Other Plagiarizers 
In fairness, Chris Spence is not the first academic to steal others’ works and pretend they were his--as the following two examples show--and he likely won’t be the last.  
Martin Luther King, Jr.
One of the most-famous academic plagiarists was the renowned civil rights activist, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was assassinated in Memphis in 1968. 
On October 11, 1991 the New York Times reported that a committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded, on that day, that King "plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago." 
The committee said "there is no question" that King "plagiarized...by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation" (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html).

The committee said revoking King’s Ph.D. would serve no purpose.

Dean of Medical School, University of Alberta
In June 2011 Dr. Philip Baker resigned as Dean of the University of Alberta’s Medical School for plagiarizing a speech he gave at a graduation ceremony at the university. The National Post reported the speech was originally given by a noted surgeon, Atul Gawande, at a convocation address at Stanford University in California.
“The (original) speech was published in The New Yorker magazine last year and many had read it. One graduate said his brother found the original speech on The New Yorker website during the banquet and was following along with Dr. Baker word for word” (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/17/university-of-alberta-medical-school-dean-resigns-after-plagiarizing-speech/).
To steal or not to steal: There really should be no question.

Rivalling Ripley

Once upon a time the fascinating tales of Ripley’s Believe it or Not signified stories that actually happened but were really just too hard to believe.

One of the latest narratives in the 'stranger than fiction' genre that comes to mind is the current claim by Canadian actor Jim Carrey that he can no longer support the violence in his new film, apparently scheduled for an August 2013 release.
Now Against Violence

The movie supposedly depicts violence, which Carrey claims to now disavow, even though he likely didn’t have any qualms about taking his paycheque, which was probably more money than most average people will ever see in their lifetimes.

In fairness, Carrey says he made the film about a month before the infamous bloodbath at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut in December. He implies he felt all right making the film, complete with its apparent violence, before the Sandy Hook shootings. Now, though, Carrey denounces the film’s violence. He says he’s not ashamed of the movie, “but recent events have caused a change in my heart" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/06/24/jim-carrey-kick-ass-support-violence-gun-control.html).
Yet, why would Carrey not be ashamed of the film, especially if he believes, as he suggests he does, that the movie's violence might be harmful or offensive to children or others?

Motivation
When all is said and done,Carrey’s motives in his anti-violence message regarding his new movie are debatable, and his comments are worthy of being in the same league as Ripley’s Believe it or Not: we know he said these things, but his comments are hard to believe.
Consider Carrey’s profession: he’s an actor and comedian. When he makes movies he is making his living and his money by pretending. In this context, in Carrey's recent public comments denouncing the apparent violence in his new movie, he seems to be suggesting he does not want people to go and see the film.
The Art of Pretense
Carrey seems to be trying to convince us, or himself, that he doesn't support the movie. In fact, though, he could be pretending. Because he works in an industry where pretending is the name of the game, his condemnation of the apparent violence in his new film might be just an act; a gimmick to get people interested in the movie.
In other words, Carrey might be just pretending to be upset with the movie's apparent violence, to get people to pay attention to his film when it comes out in a month or so.
Worried
There is at least one other possible reason for Carrey's recent comments: perhaps he feels insecure about his own performance in the film and is worried about being criticized. If so, Carrey might be trying to prepare critics and audiences in advance, to lessen the potential backlash against him if they don't like his performance.  
Raising Questions
Regardless of Carrey's actual reasons for making his recent comments about his new movie, his remarks raise some questions about his honesty, ethics, and motives. For instance:

• If Carrey really objects so much to his new movie’s apparent violence why did he not demand his name be removed from the credits?

• Why did Carrey not return his paycheque, on principle and to prove he’s serious about his current claims denouncing the movie’s apparent violence?

• Why did Carrey not denounce the film’s apparent violence immediately after the Sandy Hook shootings, instead of doing so a matter of weeks before the movie’s release?

•  Why did Carrey not file an injunction against the movie’s production company to halt the release of the film?

• Could Carrey merely be ‘going through the motions’ of denouncing the movie’s violence, as a clever and carefully-planned marketing and promotional technique?

• Is Carrey actually doing a splendid job of promoting his new film to ensure it is seen by as many people as possible—ironically, by suggesting people should not see the violence in the movie?

Fact or Fiction
Ultimately, Carrey's recent remarks about the apparent violence in his new movie seem questionable. This is because when he condemns his new film's violence he also seems to suggest he does not support the movie, which supposedly comes out in a few weeks. 
Yet, in doing so, Carrey is actually promoting the film and getting the media and others to pay attention to it.
Believe it Or Not
In Carrey's own way, then, he could be trying to brace himself for a box-office smash or a dismal failure; or something in-between. And believe it or not, all of this might be a case of truth being stranger than fiction, since Carrey's recent comments could just be part of a marketing strategy. It's enough to make Ripley proud.

Lance-a-Lot Chat Raises Questions

By now, most people are likely at least somewhat aware of former champion cyclist Lance Armstrong’s recent ‘confessions’ to Queen Oprah. The details of his cycling sins and sanctions against him are well-known and don’t bear repeating here.

Yes, he told Oprah, he used performing enhancing steroids, other drugs and blood transfusions to help him race better than if he hadn't been a dope on dope. 

No, he would not have been the champion that he was, without the drugs. 

Yes, he was a bully and not very nice.

When asked by Oprah if he cheated, Armstrong waffled. He said he has looked up the definition of cheating in a dictionary and suggested he didn't really fit that particular definition--so he doesn't think he cheated in his dope-filled racing years. 

Purging for Profit?

When I first learned Armstrong was supposedly going to ‘tell all’ and bare his soul on national television, I wondered if this would all seem somehow anticlimactic since there already seems to be a mountain of evidence against him from his cheating cycling days; evidence that has already led to him losing all of his cycling awards.

What was there was going to be in all of this for him? Surely, I thought, he won’t publicly admit to the drugging allegations just out of the goodness of his heart; just to be a good guy. After all, he’s had a long time to do the ‘right thing’ and tell the truth if that, in fact, was his priority in talking with Oprah. So, why now?

Possibilities

Considering the confessional mode Armstrong seems in now, it helps to keep in mind that most celebrities—singers, actors, athletes, and other notables in the public eye—usually don’t ‘come clean’ about anything personal unless they have an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

They usually have something to gain, such as trying to enhance their reputation for some intangible reason, or to enhance their image because they have something tangible to sell—a book, movie, record, concert tour, or the like. Normally, the release of those kinds of products is typically timed to coincide with the person’s public confession, or at least sometime soon afterwards.

Penance or Propaganda?

With these things in mind, we can wonder about Armstrong’s recent cozy chat with Oprah. I imagined there surely would be something self-serving about whatever he said during the ‘O’ sessions. Then, shortly before the first segment of the interview aired, more than one online news site reported he wants to compete again, and apparently was hoping his public self-flogging would open the door for that to happen.

Ah ha, I thought, there it is: Armstrong might be hoping the authorities and public will sympathize with him for being so brave and honest about his cheating while cycling; which most other people suspected anyway. If so, he could be banking on the public and the authorities thinking he just made a few innocent mistakes and deserves another chance, so everyone will be on his side again, not against him anymore.

And all Armstrong had to do with Oprah was swallow his ego and pride a little and ‘open up,’ to use the current nauseating media lexicon for celebrity interviews-confessionals. I say ‘nauseating’ because when these folks ‘open up’ it’s almost always contrived when they have something to gain; like they’re pimping themselves out for profit.

Paying the Price

Shortly after reading about Armstrong’s apparent goal of competing professionally again, I also learned that a biographical movie about him is in the works. If so, will he benefit financially from the alleged proposed film? 

In confessing to Oprah was he laying the groundwork for upcoming publicity for the alleged film, to soften his image? If such a film is pending, Armstrong’s mea culpa via Oprah could be considered self-serving. 

Is the supposed film being produced by independent filmmakers who have no other connection to Armstrong? Is he involved in the production—and therefore potentially well-served by his act of contrition with Oprah?

Helping Hands

We also might wonder if Oprah actually sympathizes with Armstrong and was purposely trying to help him restore his tattered reputation—while knowing his appearance would also boost the supposed sagging image of her own OWN network—tit for tat? 

Oprah is known as a great sympathizer and recognizes a good T.V. moment when she smells one. She’s also an entertainer, not a hard-nosed journalist. So, her approach in speaking ‘candidly’ with Armstrong on national television might be different from that of an experienced journalist trying to get to the bottom of a story.   

More or Less

Regardless of the eventual merits or disadvantages of the recent Lance-a-Lot-Oprah session, we can wonder if Armstrong will or can stop there. Will he button his lip except perhaps to speak with authorities about his now-admitted drug use while cycling—to demonstrate he really wants to do the right thing by openly discussing that ugly part of his professional past during those years?

Or will he continue demonstrating that his actions seem designed to portray him as the victim—as when he previously sued and verbally attacked those who, we now know, correctly claimed he took performance enhancing drugs while cycling?

Turning a Page

Ultimately, will Lance Armstrong be so enthralled by the attention and publicity from his recent verbal dance with Oprah that he’ll want or need more of the same? 

Can we expect to see his ‘candid’ memoir—which might already be printed, under a blanket of secrecy--in bookstores soon, essentially timed in tandem with the ‘Oprah effect’? 

In this sense the last chapter of Armstrong’s time in the limelight likely hasn't been written yet.