On Michelle, Melania and Plagiarism

Wendy Sutherland-Smith gives us a comprehensive look at plagiarism and what it entails in "Pandora’s Box: Academic Perceptions of Student Plagiarism in Writing".

Prompt: Explain how Melania Trump's speech in July 2016 at the Republican National Convention is defined as plagiarism (per the definition you have noted from Sutherland Smith's essay). Explain how the speech damaged/stole knowledge/expression.

---

Melania Trump’s speech at the 2016 Republican Convention had a polarizing effect. Some felt that it was a blatant copy of Michelle Obama’s Democratic Convention Speech in 2008; still, others considered this an exaggeration, claiming that the speech merely contained fragments of other speeches that ‘reflected her own thinking.’

Wendy Sutherland-Smith’s study on plagiarism in Pandora’s Box: Academic Perceptions of Student Plagiarism in Writing gives us several points to consider in determining whether Mrs. Trump and her speechwriters were guilty of this kidnapping of language. Smith, in her study, explores the differing perceptions that educators have about plagiarism, and its ramifications in the academic environment.

Smith points us firstly to the Latin meaning of the word: it is broadly defined as the ‘theft or literary adoption of the thought or works of another.’ By this definition alone, it is easy to see why Melania Trump was the target of pointed criticism. There were specific sections of her speech that included the exact words and phrases Mrs. Obama delivered in 2008: ‘…that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond’ and ‘…your dreams and your willingness to work for them’. Whilst only a small percentage of the speech was copied verbatim, much of the themes and ideas were the same. In her speech, Mrs. Obama referenced her and her husband’s unique life principles and values, which I think was why it was doubly outrageous to hear some of the exact references in Mrs. Trump’s speech; this wasn’t just about abstract facts or figures, it was a hijacking of personal belief systems and individual experiences. Therefore, if we are to accept the aforementioned definition, it is undeniable that plagiarism was present.

Interesting to note in Smith’s findings is the concept of ‘unintentional’ plagiarism, which is an idea that was initially unheard of to me. Some educators claim that there are students who do not intend to plagiarize, but they do either because of their cultural norms, or because they have poor referencing skills. To me, this complicates matters greatly, because it allows plagiarism to be described beyond the black and white; in Mrs. Trump’s case, we wouldn’t stop at the copying of ideas, but we would have to consider whether she and her speechwriters intended to, whether their cultural ideas about plagiarism aligned with the Western perception of plagiarism, and whether the copying was justified because it was ‘good’ plagiarism (is there really such a thing?). Smith’s study shows that there are several different perceptions of plagiarism, and this lack of uniformity makes it more difficult to make justified accusations.

Regardless of these different perceptions, and without getting into technicalities, there is no denying that Melania Trump reproduced ideas that were not hers, and she did so without attribution. When public figures such as herself are found guilty of these transgressions, it speaks volumes about them and sets a poor example for their audiences who, in many cases, know no better.