In a recent email from a reader of AVFM I’ll identify as “IR”, it was suggested that an AVFM article written by contributor John Hembling and published April 17, 2011, “appears to have several passages largely cribbed from this 2003 piece at Alternet:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/leo_strauss%27_philosophy_of_deception”
The Alternet article was credited to author Jim Lobe.
The article by Hembling in question is this one:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/leo-strauss-and-neo-conservatism/
AVFM takes allegations of plagiarism seriously and in the past we have removed and banned articles and authors we have determined were tainted by plagiarism. Some of these authors had significant followings among our readership and while I was aggrieved to lose them, the integrity of AVFM and our mission of compassion for men and advocacy of men’s issues must take precedence.
What exactly does “plagiarize” entail? I Googled the word, and got this primary result:
“pla·gia·rize ˈplājəˌrīz/ verb
1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one’s own.”
In other words, plagiarism is a sort of intellectual theft. Copying someone else’s work word for word and representing the result as one’s own work is obvious plagiarism, but quoting someone is not generally plagiarism.
A harder question is when an idea is “borrowed” and substantially rewritten, but the source of that idea is not credited. I would contend that when a large number of common elements are discovered between two articles, the likelihood that the more recent article contains plagiarism grows and eventually the case for plagiarism becomes persuasive.
To that end, I have personally checked and discovered at least 5 examples of both ideas and writing that seem to have been cribbed, and in the case of example 3, outright copied by Hembling in his 2011 article without proper credit being given to Lobe’s 2003 article. Those 5 examples are as follows:
Example 1. From Hembling’s 2011 article:
Strauss was a political philosopher who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including University of Chicago.
Similar passage from Lobe’s 2003 article:
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky’s alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Example 2. From Hembling’s 2011 article:
“Among Strauss’s students were the architects of the neo-conservatism which has dominated and defined the agenda of the democratic and the republican parties of the past several decades.”
Similar passage from Lobe’s 2003 article:
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration.
Example 3. From Hembling’s 2011 article:
While outwardly professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical; divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. Unlike philosophical elitists such as Plato, he was unconcerned with the moral character of these leaders.
Nearly identical passage from Lobe’s 2003 article:
While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders.
Example 4. From Hembling’s 2011 article:
Shadia Drury, Professor of political science at the University of Calgary described this philosophy as one which requires an environment of “perpetual deception” in which the people are indoctrinated to a manufactured mythology, of simplistic character appropriate to their meagre [sic] powers of comprehension.
According to Drury, Straussian philosophy requires: “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them.”
In Straussian philosophy, the “elite” believe that there is no morality and the only natural right is that of the superior to rule over the inferior.
Similar passages from Lobe’s 2003 article:
According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
This dichotomy requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury.
Example 5. From Hembling’s 2011 article:
Strauss also believed that “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed . Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united and they can only be united against other people.”
A Straussian society then, requires a state of perpetual war.
Similar passage from Lobe’s 2003 article:
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,” he once wrote. “Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people.”
“Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” says Drury.
From these 5 examples and particularly example 3, it is reasonable to conclude that a substantial portion of Hembling’s 2011 article was, in fact, plagiarized from Lobe’s earlier work.
AVFM offers our gratitude to reader “IR” who first alerted us to this situation,
AVFM offers our apologies to Jim Lobe for the uncredited use of his work.
AVFM also apologizes to our readers for this clear breach of journalistic ethics, and we promise that steps will be taken to remove the offending material.
AVFM reproves author John Hembling and urges caution to those who have used, or are considering using his work.
Thank you to everyone for your understanding in this regrettable case.
Publisher’s note: In light of this very disappointing development, Hembling’s post will remain up for approximately 24 hours so that readers can make the comparisons of the work themselves, after which the plagiarized piece and all other works from John Hembling on this site will be removed. I know we have had our differences since asking John to leave AVFM, but it never rose to the level of this kind of drastic action till now. We will not allow this platform to be used for the purpose of stealing the intellectual property of others and passing it off as original work. I extend my deepest apologies to Mr. Lobe and my assurances that this is the first I have known of this dishonest act. –PE
