Barack Obama And Why It Matters That He Plagiarized A Speech (At Least One That We Know Of)

As a child psychologist and psychoanalyst, I have worked with children and adolescents of all ages who come to me with every imaginable kind of problem (and some that are, quite frankly, unimaginable). Usually, the teenagers I see are there because they've gotten themselves into trouble, both at home and at school. The trouble could be drugs, it could be overly aggressive behavior, it could be truancy, it could be lack of respect shown to authority figures and, not uncommonly, it could be because he or she has gotten thrown out of school for plagiarism.

Any child over the age of, say, 8, knows it is not only morally wrong to sign your name to something you did not write but that it is a punishable act. Such punishment, when the child who commits the plagiarism is in high school or college, often includes expulsion from school. With kids ever more internet savvy (i.e., having access to the myriads of articles and papers written on any given subject by some supposedly obscure author) and school administrators and teachers trying to ensure that the teen does not "slip one past them," schools are increasingly using programs designed to detect whether, in fact, a piece of written work handed in by a student was actually written by that student and does not match, in phraseology or any other patterns that such programs detect, written work by someone other than the student. We, as a society, value honesty and integrity and one of the surest mark of a lack of both is a person's willingness to claim someone else's words (or work) as their own.

And this is why it matters that Barack Obama is now furiously trying to suggest that it's "no big deal" that he plagiarized his friend's, Deval Patrick's, speech. He's even claiming that Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech. Perhaps Mr. Patrick did. Perhaps Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech and never told him to say it was written by Mr. Patrick and not by Mr. Obama. It doesn't matter, actually, what Mr. Patrick said or did not say to Mr. Obama. What matters is that Mr. Obama passed this speech off as his own, adding only his by now customary flourishes of tone and inflection. That the man who has presented himself to this country as the man of integrity and change turns out to be a fraud — and that is what we call people who pretend that someone else's words are their own — must be a profound disappointment for his supporters, if they can be honest enough with themselves to admit it.

However, what's even more disheartening and heartbreaking is this: Mr. Obama, in his historic bid for the Presidency, represented an ideal with whom children from broken homes, of mixed racial origins, of no great means, of inner turmoil who seek refuge in drugs, could all look up to and strive to be. In one fell swoop of his unwritten-with pen, he has dashed the hope that here stood a man who pulled himself together and got it together.

Here stood a man who towered above others in his quest for decency and integrity. Here stood a man who played it straight and said it as he saw it. But Mr. Obama is not that man. This man, as it turns out, is just another guy who seems to have bought into his own hype about how wonderful he is even as he tries to convince us he is not simply a liar. Worse still, he has been shown to be a liar while he has paradoxically been running his entire campaign based virtually exclusively on his stellar character, a character he has claimed that is so different from all those Washington insiders he has sought to set himself apart from.

Listening to the pundits of Slate Magazine claim that this charge of plagiarism "won't stick" with the voters because "with Obama, there's no pattern of lying," only adds insult to injury. I'm sure that even Slate Magazine remembers that Mr. Obama's so-called autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was discovered not to be entirely factual, as well. It took Mr. Obama some time, as I recall, to finally admit that, yes, some of the characters were not real but were, rather, "composite" characters. In other words, they were fiction. Which means that, in other words, he lied about it and never told anyone that his autobiography was not only not entirely written by him (check with his ghost writer), but that his so-called life was not exactly what he claimed it was.

Children know that not telling the truth, either by omission or commission, is the definition of a lie. Perhaps there is more of a pattern to Mr. Obama's distortions and omissions than even these two rather egregious examples point to. As a clinician, I have found that if one lies about one or two things here or there and then makes light of those lies, and acts as if the ones who find this offensive are the ones making mountains out of molehills, you can almost take it to the bank that a deeper pattern of not telling it like it is exists. It's only a matter of time before it becomes more fully exposed. So, it's suffer the children yet again. Yet again, a grownup who might actually have served as the inspiration he so adamantly claims he is, turns out to be another scammer who, when caught in the scam, does what every child does: he says, "it's no big deal." And then he has the audacity to cast aspersions on the ones who caught him. Even the children I see don't do that.

So, here's the lesson these kids will learn if the media, as they seem likely to do, go too easy on Mr. Obama for this crime: The trick is in getting away with it. That's the lesson they will learn, when the sad thing is they could have learned so much more from him. Mr. Obama's dismissal of this fraudulent act and his other as "no big deals" undermines what parents and teachers have been trying to teach their kids about honesty and integrity, sometimes against very strong odds. They thought maybe in Mr. Obama they had a helping hand. They were wrong.

What they have instead is a man who, while seeking the highest office in the land, shrugs off a "crime" as no big deal, seeks to blame those who uncovered it, and arrogantly thinks he should not be held to the same standard to which we hold school children. I only hope for the sake of the children watching, that he is wrong.

As Mr. Obama using Mr. Patrick's speech says, "it's only words." Yes, Mr. Obama, words do matter, especially when they're lies.

Dr. Sylvia Welsh is a Clinical Psychologist and Psychoanalyst. She is on the faculty of the NYU Psychoanalytic Institute and the faculty of the NYU School Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Dr. Welsh treats children, adolescents and adults, families and couples.

Read more news and blog posts on accusations of plagiarism against Obama

Comments

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Clinton (Feb. 21, 2008): "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about."

Edwards (Dec. 13, 2007): "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine."

Bill Clinton (1992): "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Clinton (Feb. 21, 2008): "You know, the hits I"ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

[Neaguy]

Dr. Welsh:
Superb analysis. I see that those drinking this con man's kool aid are incensed by your well written dissection of the great triangulator.

thanks for this great article

[nhreader]

I kept reading this Welsh thing, thinking it must be tongue-in-cheek. But I think it wasn't. Yikes! What is this world coming to? I guess anything at all can pass for thinking.

[Openeyes]

You can't be serious. The language from the speech was "'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' -- just words?"

So repeating someone else's comments quoting someone else makes him a fraud? This is somehow a lie? This is a character issue? If that's the best you've got, you and Hillary must really be desparate. Are you suggesting that he attempted to pass of those quotes as his own language? It doesn't seem so. Then you must be complaining that he was passing off the collection in that order as his own when someone else had previously gathered those quotes together?
Do we know if Deval Patrick borrowed that language from anyone?

Does any one care? How can it possibly matter that he quoted language that has obviously been quoted thousands of times before by others, even if it was not in that exact order, or all of those quotes collectively - what exactly is the harm here, the "lie" that he told in using that language?

If he repeated "Ask not what your country can do for you" in a speech, if he didn't say, by the way, that was from John F. Kennedy, would it be a "lie?" Or would pretty much everyone recognize that along with "Four score and seven years ago"?

Get a life.

[rovezaleeker]

How the hell did George Bush get through Yale?

[rovezaleeker]

Ya think?

[Necron99]

I believe the polite phrase is "Gentleman's C."

[jerseywolf]

You make the hasty conclusion that, since he used a passage from a friend's speech in his own speech, Barack Obama is an utter fraud. Yes, he should have cited Deval Patrick, his friend, even if Patrick was an authorized source. He said he was in error. People make mistakes. We are all fallible. But it's a bit extreme to conclude from this mistake that Obama is a complete fraud and a liar. One might refer to your whole line of argument as an appeal to the extreme. I find it disturbing that a clinical psychologist would take such an approach. Indeed, your entire "for the sake of the children" argument is manipulative and shameless.

[jerseywolf]

Furthermore, this was a political speech. It's not at all the same as a published work. Again, I think he should have cited Deval Patrick. He said so himself. But this just doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism.

I think now I'll stop wasting time responding to this article.

[tabatha]

it's b/c obama made such an issue out of his integrity that this matters

using another's words, and passing them off as one's own, is conning the audience

the audience attributes the words' brilliance to obama.....not knowing they were another's creation, not obama's creation

doesn't matter if obama had "permission" or even prior permission....

it's the act of conning the audience, making them think it's his original oratory

[Nommo]

Oh, a haute couture crowd. Really, it is not a contest nor a dramatic presentation. This is a country that fills up huge churches every Sunday.
Why are they there? To hear something original? That was an original thought.

The thing with people is that if one says something that is original, you have to tell the people that what you said is original. How would they otherwise know? That was an original thought, you know. Both the statement and the question.

Imagine having to do that after every sentence.
That was an original thought, you know. You could drive yourself nuts. I am sure that you have had that thought originally, but I don't know. There's another.

You know that 2 Black men speaking is a conspiracy? His mistake was nothing he said,
it was being friends with Patrick.
That's not so original, but no one else will say it.

[jerseywolf]

There's a bifurcation at work here among some of these posters: either Obama is a man of great integrity . . . or a con-man. But it's possible (and more than likely) that he's a good man (and a very solid candidate) who makes a few mistakes now and then. This doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism.

[SMK]

I do however disagree with you about the potential of Barack Obama to be a role model in light of this event. While I agree that character is an important consideration of a candidate and this event opens up more questions about Barack Obama"s character, I don"t think it should tell the whole story. First, we know through history that our best presidents have not always upheld high moral standards and that excellent characters don"t guarantee excellent presidents. Furthermore, I don"t think Barack Obama"s failure to cite Gov. Patrick renders him indecent and unethical. Obama has written several inspiring, influential speeches which have energized people of all ages. He should be praised for these endeavors and as a response to concerned Americans like you, he should amend his actions in future speeches.

[SMK]

I want to thank you first on providing a valuable, distinctive perspective on Barack Obama"s recent trouble with plagiarism. I too believe that the media downplay of the incident is unfortunate and that Barack Obama"s misstep has some relevant implications in the campaign for the presidential nomination. I particularly liked that you isolated the event to focus on Barack Obama"s actions without getting your point diminished as being part of an empty, pro-Hillary Clinton and anti-Barack Obama mudslinging war.

You used children in your examples, but given the record numbers of young people participating in the campaign, I felt a discussion of college students in particular should be included. I have personally weighed the significance of Barack Obama"s uncredited "borrowing" of Governor Deval Patrick"s speech. I know that if I had, say, transcribed part of Obama"s speech for use in a paper, I would have been shocked to learn that I had mistakenly credited the Senator with writing words that were only lent to him. As academic integrity is a major part of most university student's scholarly careers and we are taught from day one to always cite the words of others, I would be confused by the mixed message sent by Obama, who has hardly accepted responsibility for his failure to credit Gov. Patrick. After all, Obama could have easily -- especially since he had permission -- made a quick nod at Gov. Patrick without diminishing the value of his words.

[bellecloche]

I'm at this point as good as numbed by authors trying to fill their columns with their opinions of this non-entity, I'll just say, Dr. Welsh, that either you are ignorant or lying about the issue. Mr. Obama did not plagiarize a "speech" - he used ONE PHRASE. (The interrogative phrase was "Just words?") Both he and Mr. Patrick played that phrase off three different famous American quotations, twice they used the same examples, once they chose differently. You may protest that you did not mean to lie by incorrectly choosing the word "speech," but I'm just playing by the rules you've set up and conclude that I can give your article no credence whatsoever.

[oogabooga]

Exactly, Obama used three famous inspirational quotes that politicians often repeat. If that's "plagiarism" then so be it. I heard the quotes and Obama is reviving the meaning that Thomas Jefferson, JFK and Dr. King intended when they said them. A "clinical psychologist" should be able to figure our the difference. My goodness gracious.

[fightorleave2]

Way to go, bellecloche! Great to see that the American people ain't as stupid as they think we is.

[MzTexas]

Amen, Dr. Walsh.

[KaAp]

Dr. Welsh

You and I both know that plagiarism is a far more complicated issue than how you are framing it ... and what Obama did, cannot be considered plagiarism by any IRB committee and we both know it. So, why write this article in such a manner to suggest that it is?
Defining plagiarism is actually fairly easy. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (COED) says that plagiarism is (and to be fair I am taking this from the following site (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/study/plag.html)
The action or practice of plagiarizing; the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another.

It was not wrongful appropriation because as Keith Olbermann noted the other evening (on Monday) Obama had cited Gov. Patrick on a previous occasion ...
Also, most of the material was in the public domain ...
And, he had Gov Patrick's permission to do so ...
So it is not credible under part one of the definition of plagarism

2. A purloined idea, design, passage, or work. (COED 1971:2192)
According to the same dictionary, to purloin means:
2. To make away with, misappropriate, or take dishonestly; to steal, esp. under circumstances which involve a breach of trust; to pilfer, filtch;
It is not plagiarism when you have someone's permission and no breech of trust between Obama and Patrick occurred they both have said they trade and exchange words and ideas many times ...
Just by your use of quote marks without citation or permission from Gov Patrick can be construed as plagiarism ... there are quasi axiomatics in your blog that ought to be attributed to the original locutor alas it is not ... shall I say you are plagiarizing? As for your comments about
continued

[KaAp]

Obama's work and your discussion surrounding Slate magazine shouldn't there be citations of the author :if your work is to be considered credible and free from plagiarizing itself since you seem to be quoting pundits and not specifying who they are, but, you are citing an article ...
And don't you think that you should be completely honest and candid about your position at NYU for those who are not aware of the differences in academic standing especially as they relate to medical schools? Passing yourself off as a faculty member at NYU when you know full and well that the role of clinical associate faculty member is something a tad bit different than an associate professor of psychiatry? My husband is a clinical professor of medicine at a medical school as are pretty much every physician I know. But, he is in private practice ... he would never write his clinical position in as something as a credential to position himself as someone who is an academic: nor when presenting a paper would he use his academic affiliation as a clinician to "professionalize" his commentary. I do not see your research grants or your publications etc on the NYU Psychoanalytic institute the other academic space you cite for your expertise to speak to ethics from a position of authority. Rather there is an asterisk by your name also describing your word as a training or supervising analyst: not a faculty member ...
At my university we hire clinical adjuncts all the time bu t that does not make them part of the tenured faculty ... and you are passing yourself off as an expert faculty member from NYU with knowledge about this particular field --- and oh my my
Further you are generalizing about teenagers about schools etc without citation and if you have evidence etc then don't you think you ought to use the citations available to you? Or, are you plagiarizing ideas or intent or paraphrasing without permission as well If you are so concerned with issues of plagiarism show me the specific sources and back up your generalizations and allegations

[Justtellthetruth]

It's a darn good thing that you have to 18 or older to vote in this country, because I think that this Sylvia Welsh person has absolutely HOODWINKED the entire US population of grade 4 and lower with her "child proof" reasoning.

This sort of razor sharp, yet desperate political has proven EXTREMELY effective in convincing this entire demographic to believe that a mythical fatman from the north pole watches their behavior throughout the year and rewards them appropriately (sort of like Hillarys ACTUAL plan to watch YOU and garnish your wages if you fall behind on your mandatory healh care payments, which go to the companies that pay her more PAC money than anyone but George Bush.)

However, Thank God that everyone ELSE in this country is able to reason well beyond the "kid proof" logic employed here.

[Elitnaurista]

Lady, are you nuts? All of these guys have speech writers. Are you saying that they need to credit each writer with each line they contribute?

[FadeIn]

Is there even one poster on here who can support Obama by praise for their candidate, without resorting to attacking the Clintons? Obama must have more going for him than that. As a post further down suggests, I too am afraid Rove would be proud. I'm a Democrat and I'll vote for Obama if he wins because basically I like him (even though I hope Hillary wins), but on the whole I'm ashamed to be a Democrat, with the likes of the Rove-like attacks from the Obama supporters on this Blog.

[vbond]

OK... here's one.

Barack Obama is a completely unique political phenomenon, whose eloquence is matched by his authenticity.

My contacts in Chicago completely support this impression.

He had previously cited Gov. Patrick regarding the "Just words" words, though it was hardly necessary, given Patrick's and Obama's relationship and Patrick's dismissal of any concern about his words having been misappropriated.

That this issue was transparent to the voters of Wisconsin should in some way illuminate the absurd and contradictory lengths that some have gone to brand Obama as a word-thief.

[FadeIn]

Even though I don't agree with you, I appreciate the way you supported Obama. You didn't accuse, you praised and for that you should be commended.