[continued from previous message]   
      
   article soft-pedals King's 'borrowings', and cites Keith   
   Miller's thesis that King's 'voice merging' stems from the oral   
   traditions of the black church. The article says that 'most of   
   King's papers had many original thoughts', but often 'borrowed   
   without citing'. According to Waldman, Carson has asked staff   
   members to refrain from use of the 'p'-word around the office.   
   November 10 1990   
      
   Other major American newspapers followed the WSJ with front-page   
   stories on the plagiarism   
   January 1991   
      
   Theodore Pappas, in a article in Chronicles written before the   
   WSJ article, compares sections of King's thesis in detail with   
   that of Jack Boozer, showing for the first time the enormous   
   extent of King's plagiarism.   
   January 1991   
      
   Charles Babington in the New Republic reveals how several   
   American newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, Atlanta   
   Journal Constitution and the New Republic) had the story since   
   at least Spring 1990), but either out of ineptitude or political   
   correctness did nothing with it.   
   September 1991   
      
   A Boston University committee reports that while 45% of the   
   first half and 21% of the second half of King's thesis was   
   plagiarized, it was still an original contribution to   
   scholarship, and his degree should not be revoked. The true   
   extent of King's plagiarism is much greater, and comparing his   
   thesis with its sources, one can only conclude that BU's   
   conclusion was purely political and academically dishonest.   
      
   http://www.martinlutherking.org/chronology.html   
                
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)